More Classroom Frustrations

     Today I was told in no uncertain terms that my questions are unwelcome in class. They're unwelcome because they represent a type of thinking that many of the other students are unwilling to do. I'm not sure what that means. I'm really confused about being told that these other students don't want to think for themselves, they want to absorb and regurgitate the material of the class. The Prof attempts to encourage thinking by asking these students to choose between opposing theories after presenting evidence that the theories are not opposed, but work together in different parts of the brain. This evidence is based on physiological studies that were not available at the time the opposed theories were originally formulated. While I understand the merits of asking students to distinguish between ideas and point out the strengths and weaknesses of each, the flaw in the method is that by presenting two choices as mutually exclusive and holistic (without any third theories available) the students are likely to neglect other options. Evidence of separate processes that follow the model set forth by both theories does nothing to help this; it only invites a rejection of sound scientific findings. It seems that once again my expectations and standards are laughably high. Intellectual discourse and critical thinking are frowned upon in upper division courses.

     I am required to take this course, if I want to complete a degree in psychology at this university. I want to complete my degree. I have to stay at this university because it's affordable and I'm nearly finished anyway. That said, I will not drop the course as one student kindly pointed out I may do. Everyone in the course is paying for it, myself included. Thus arguments to the effect that they have rights to uninterrupted lecture because they are paying for it are moot. I am paying the college to provide me time to pick a particular professor's brain about a particular subject. That implies that I can reasonably expect an answer to questions I have about the course material. If the professor acknowledges my question and spends class time to answer, that is at her discretion. If the professor wishes to complete the lecture and discuss my question outside of class, that is also at her discretion. I am unaware of any rule that states I may not "interrupt" another's learning by asking a question. I also know of no rule that says the other students have the right to shout down both myself and the professor so that the professor will continue the lecture. At the same time, however, I don't know of any rule that says they can't. In addition to all of this, I am fully aware that there is no consensus concerning the value of my questions among the students. Some appreciate the depth added to the content, and others despise that I would even think to ask questions during a boring lecture. Because of these mixed signals, I am inclined to satisfy my own curiosity until such time as the professor takes control of the situation and decides that either I or the noisy students need to shut up. As long as the professor is answering my questions, I will not stop asking.

     I realize that my thought patterns are not common. Not everyone goes around relating every little thing they learn to every other thing they have ever learned. That doesn't mean that the process is somehow invalid or intrinsically less valuable. It doesn't even mean that my thoughts are intrinsically more valuable. What it does mean is that I will ask questions to help me more accurately relate concepts to each other and point out any inconsistencies I discover so that I may resolve them. I think of my belief system, everything I know, as a vast web of connections between data points. The more connections, the stronger a data point will be, and the easier it is to remember. When a connection is found to be false, or weak, it must be replaced with a new or stronger one in order to keep the structure from collapsing. Compare this to building a house of cards. People who do this for fun have likely discovered that packing three or four cards together make better walls. If each card is a belief, the other beliefs around it rely on it for support. If one slips out, a whole section of the house falls. If one notices a weakness in the structure, repairing that weakness strengthens the structure and makes it less likely to fall. A new belief, or fresh concept, is like placing one card at the top of the house. It needs another card to hold it up, such as an association with another similar concept or an understanding of what makes the concept work. If the base is weak, or there are no supporting concepts, the idea falls. You cannot teach a child to add when it cannot yet count. A child cannot add large numbers if it cannot count high enough. Thus, by actively associating new concepts with as many old ones around it as I can, I ensure that the new do not crumble as readily. In short, this method of constant association with things is what allows me to go through classes without taking notes, even to the point of correctly anticipating new concepts I have not yet explicitly learned. There is a reason I was the designated test taker for my high school DECA team.

     In higher learning institutions, I expected to find attitudes more encouraging of self-challenge and deeper understanding of topics. I was led to believe that the antics of high school were to be left behind in high school so that those interested in learning a topic in depth could be free to do so. Apparently, that belief is wrong, at least in the case of the institution I am now attending. I am continually told to go somewhere else to find the quality of learning I am looking for while simultaneously I am to believe that the education I am paying for is effectively preparing me for even higher learning of more specific types of knowledge. How can I reasonably expect to be prepared for things which are actively discouraged (mostly by other students)? I am treated as a miscreant for thinking in ways I was led to believe were encouraged in upper division courses, especially in the sciences. How can I reconcile these beliefs? Which walls do I tear down to strengthen this feeble house of cards? If I allow myself to slip into passivity I relinquish hope of becoming and effective researcher. If I continue to antagonize the other students I risk ostracism, poor grades, and even violence if other's views are taken to extremes. I would prefer not to risk my grade, but I seem to do so in both cases for I have discovered that my most effective means of learning is taking an active role in class. Another self discovery is that if I don't take care of ideas as I have them, they become forgotten. Often these ideas are irrecoverable or irrelevant upon remembrance. Contrary to popular belief, if my assessment of it is correct, I am a very considerate person and would prefer not to disrupt the learning of others. At the same time, how can I be expected to disrupt my own optimal learning pattern? I firmly believe that the questions I ask in classes are mirrors of questions that other students do not voice or have otherwise not thought of, which enhances the learning of those around me. I have specific examples of evidence to support this belief. At the same time, some students which have a hard time digesting the class material are clearly further confused by my inquiries into more complex areas. Thus I am torn between continuing as I am to enhance my own and other's learning or ceasing my active role in class to accede to the demands of the vocal objectors to my activity. Once again, given the more or less balanced nature of the options, I am forced to conclude that it is better for me to act in my own interest rather than throw in the towel. I am willing to fight for my own edification, even if others are not willing to take charge of their own.