How to do well in college
What professors expect from their
students.
Every professor is different. Different classes under the
same professor may be different, and different universities, or different
departments at the same university, may have different
expectations.
Nonetheless, a few hints. They're just common sense,
mostly:
Go to class. That's pretty
elementary, but it's good advice. Some classes aren't worth going to, or some
sessions of a class may be a waste of time, but you should make it your goal to
go to all your classes. Most universities don't monitor class attendance as
rigidly as most high schools, nor do they usually contact your parents if you
don't go, and the temptation to skip classes will be there. Don't do it. I have
known some cases where students who could have had a promising academic career
have messed it up, just by not going.
Be prompt, if at all possible, and if
you can't be, let the professor know why, even if she doesn't seem to care (or
even know who you are).
Sit where you won't be distracted, preferably in the
front.
Stay awake.
Get enough sleep.
You and I can do many things with little or no sleep, such as many types
of work, or carrying on a social life, but serious learning often becomes a
casualty when you don't get enough sleep.
There is a school of student
thought that believes that the best way to study for a big test is to stay up
all night before it is scheduled. Wrong! Sleeping on what we have learned helps us to remember
it longer. "Cramming" for a test is probably better than no study at all, but it
isn't very efficient, and it may mean that we don't function very well in
actually taking a test, or in the other things we need to do on the day after a
night with little sleep. We tend to forget material learned in a cram session
rapidly. Often, we'll need to retain that material for a long time. In college
classes, there are often two or three tests during a semester, then a
comprehensive final, covering the entire course material. Or, in preparing for
some professions, there may be a comprehensive qualifying exam, covering much of
everything you are supposed to have learned in college. You will need to retain
facts and principles for a long time.
The same holds true for doing projects, papers, and the like. Start early, work steadily, and get them done on time, or early.
Study. The best way to study for a big test is
to study as you go along. Read your book. Review what went on in the previous
class session before the next one. Ideally, you should know what the class will
be about before you go, and be prepared with questions or comments. Study with
someone else sometimes. Study should be about what's important. That is, what
the professor may ask you, but also, what is important about this chapter, this
diagram, this term, this lab experiment. Getting another perspective on this
often helps. Even if another student knows a lot less than you, it will often
help you to explain the material to someone else.
Look over terms and
diagrams, chapter summaries, and questions at the end of a section or chapter,
in your textbook. (Some texts won't have some, maybe any, of these things,
especially in upper-level courses.)
P. S. Obtain your textbooks. Many textbooks are expensive, and, let's face it, in a few classes, you don't really
need them. But, in most classes, not having a text is a serious handicap. It's
silly to spend good money for tuition, travel, lodging, and whatever other
expenses you may have going to college, and not get textbooks. (There are some free textbooks, but some very expensive ones, too. You may be able
to buy used copies, or borrow a text from someone who had the course in a
previous semester.)
Most people learn through more than one sense. (Some
learn mostly by hearing, some by seeing, some from other senses. In some
classes, handling things may be important.) Hear your subject (In class, by
recording the class, if that helps, or if you can't be present -- a professors may allow you to record a class, or have someone else record it for you
-- they'll be thrilled that you care!) and read about it, so you've got two ways
of getting it into your brain.
Turn your assignments in on
time. Maybe even early. Give your professor cardiac arrest!
This
means planning ahead. Start those papers, book reports, lab reports, and
projects before the night before they are due.
Get noticed, for good reasons. Sit near the
front, ask good questions, stay awake, occasionally talk to the professor after
class, or in her office, or in other settings. Don't be a pest, but act like an
adult who is interested in the subject matter.
Be interested in the subject
matter.
Sometimes that's difficult. Try, anyway. Never ask "What good
is this going to do us?" about a class as a whole. Your professor may not have a
good answer (she should) but generally you are stuck with the class, anyway. The
university, or your chosen profession, require it. Make the best of it.
Sometimes you may get noticed in a good way by asking about the relevance of a
particular topic, or by suggesting a relevant topic that the class doesn't seem
to be going to cover.
Often, you will be helped by finding material other
than the text that deals with the subject matter. The Wikipedia, although not totally inerrant, is
a good source on almost any academic subject.
Pray a lot.
Pray for your professor, any
teaching assistants she has, your classmates, and, of course, yourself. Ask for
God's help in studying, in understanding the material, in getting to class, in
staying awake, in taking a test. And, of course, do your part -- you can pray
yourself into a failure, if you don't do what you are supposed to.
Thanks
for reading.
Musings on science, the Bible, and fantastic literature (and sometimes basketball and other stuff).
God speaks to us through the Bible and the findings of science, and we should listen to both types of revelation.
The title is from Psalm 84:11.
The Wikipedia is usually a pretty good reference. I mostly use the World English Bible (WEB), because it is public domain. I am grateful.
License
I have written an e-book, Does the Bible Really Say That?, which is free to anyone. To download that book, in several formats, go here.

The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
Showing posts with label university. Show all posts
Showing posts with label university. Show all posts
Thursday, February 21, 2019
Friday, March 28, 2014
God's Not Dead -- report on the movie
I saw the movie, God's Not Dead, today. It stars Kevin Sorbo, as Professor Radisson, and Shane Harper as a university freshman, Josh Wheaton. Radisson begins his philosophy class by having the students all write "God is dead" on a sheet of paper, with their names, and hand it in. Wheaton says that he can't do that, and Radisson says that, as an alternative, Wheaton must prove, in three 20 minute presentations at the end of the next meetings of the class, that God is not dead.
This movie was obviously made by Christians, and the intended audience is also Christians. Sorbo, and, probably, all the other actors, are also Christians. The Newsboys and Willie and Korie Robinson, of Duck Dynasty, appear as themselves, and are portrayed as outspoken Christians.
Some (not all, I'm sure) Christians may be disturbed by some aspects of the film. A Christian character prepares a meal, and purchases and serves wine. Wheaton's defense of God's existence includes the following, which some will not appreciate: 1) It's not possible to disprove God's existence, but it's not possible to prove it, either. 2) God worked through the Big Bang in the origination of the universe (for more on that, see here) and this is consistent with "Let there be light!" in Genesis 1. 3) Evolution occurred, as God's method of establishing the diversity of living things. This last point got only a couple of sentences, and neither Radisson or Wheaton mentioned the origin of humans.
I will try not to give away much of the plot, and there is a plot. In fact, there are several plots, more or less woven together, involving several characters. I will say that three different couples broke up during the film, and one of the less believable aspects of it is how they stayed together long enough to be presented as couples in the first place, considering that each one had at least one seriously self-centered egotist as one partner. (One of these was supposedly a Christian.) I thought there was too much going on in the movie, actually.
The film is a dramatized version of Christian apologetics. In my view, it does this well, presenting most or all of the important reasons that atheists claim argue against God's existence, and some rebuttals of these reasons. One apologetic defense is to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or to ask "Who started the Big Bang?"
Stephen Hawking is a prominent atheist, and was named, by Radisson, as the greatest scientific mind in the history of the world. (That claim could certainly be disputed, with, say, Newton, as another candidate!) In his book, The Grand Design, co-authored by Leonard Mlodinow, the following statement occurs, and Radisson quoted all or part of it: Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
There are some problems with using this passage to disprove God's existence. First, as you will see if you go to the Wikipedia article on the book, you will read that by no means all scientists are in agreement with Hawking and Mlodinow, and apparently some who don't agree with them are also unbelievers. Second, why is there gravity at all? (I am sorry that I have yet to read this book -- possibly the authors answer that, but I really doubt it.) Third, as Wheaton pointed out to Radisson, ". . . philosophy is dead." (p. 5)
There was an apologetics advisor for the film. I glimpsed that in the opening credits, but do not recall the name given, and I haven't found it in the movie's web site. Whoever this was, I thought he did a good job. (It was a he. That much I can recall.) At the end of the film, as part of the credits, there was a rather long list of universities that had been sued by Christians (and possibly by some others) for denying Christians their constitutional rights. I'm not sure that any of these were directly related to the subject of the movie. I found one such case on the web site of the Alliance Defense Fund. A student was required to argue in favor of adoption by same-sex couples, and asked for a different assignment, but, instead, was subjected to an examination ". . . for hours about her Christian faith," by a faculty committee. Eventually, apparently after action by the Alliance Defense Fund, she was exonerated, the professor was fired, and she was offered compensation by the university. The credits also said that, at the University I graduated from, the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship was banned as a student organization, and that ruling was overturned, after intervention by the ADF. I checked, and found that that claim seems also to be true.
Is being told that there is no God, by a professor, persecution? I don't think so. Being required to act as if you agreed with it, when you don't, would seem to be, however. I don't think being asked to defend one's beliefs is persecution either, in and of itself. It is often part of a higher education, on all sorts of issues.
At least one university philosophy professor has written in defense of Radisson. One claim he makes is that it is Christian universities who deny freedom of thought, by expecting students and faculty to agree to statements of belief, and then expelling them, or firing them, if they don't live up to such an agreement. To some extent, this is true. However, I was on the faculty of a Christian university for over four decades, and never heard of a student being asked to leave for unbelief. (Some were asked to leave for various kinds of bad behavior.) Some students did not believe, of course. At least a couple of faculty were let go precipitously, also for behavior inconsistent with the university's statement of belief. The professor cited claims that state universities are tolerant of all beliefs, and allow freedom of thought. Cases like the ones mentioned above indicate that freedom of thought isn't always tolerated on secular campuses, in spite of what the professor believes. He makes other claims. Some of them seem to be at least partly valid.
I'm glad that I went to see God's Not Dead. It wasn't the greatest movie ever made, but it was thought-provoking.
Thanks for reading!
* * * * *
Note added, May 21, 2014. I have now read, and discussed, the book by Hawking that was so central to the conflict in the movie. My discussion is here.
June 17, 2014. The Speculative Faith blog has published a review of the film, which points out some of the same flaws as the post above.
This movie was obviously made by Christians, and the intended audience is also Christians. Sorbo, and, probably, all the other actors, are also Christians. The Newsboys and Willie and Korie Robinson, of Duck Dynasty, appear as themselves, and are portrayed as outspoken Christians.
Some (not all, I'm sure) Christians may be disturbed by some aspects of the film. A Christian character prepares a meal, and purchases and serves wine. Wheaton's defense of God's existence includes the following, which some will not appreciate: 1) It's not possible to disprove God's existence, but it's not possible to prove it, either. 2) God worked through the Big Bang in the origination of the universe (for more on that, see here) and this is consistent with "Let there be light!" in Genesis 1. 3) Evolution occurred, as God's method of establishing the diversity of living things. This last point got only a couple of sentences, and neither Radisson or Wheaton mentioned the origin of humans.
I will try not to give away much of the plot, and there is a plot. In fact, there are several plots, more or less woven together, involving several characters. I will say that three different couples broke up during the film, and one of the less believable aspects of it is how they stayed together long enough to be presented as couples in the first place, considering that each one had at least one seriously self-centered egotist as one partner. (One of these was supposedly a Christian.) I thought there was too much going on in the movie, actually.
The film is a dramatized version of Christian apologetics. In my view, it does this well, presenting most or all of the important reasons that atheists claim argue against God's existence, and some rebuttals of these reasons. One apologetic defense is to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or to ask "Who started the Big Bang?"
Stephen Hawking is a prominent atheist, and was named, by Radisson, as the greatest scientific mind in the history of the world. (That claim could certainly be disputed, with, say, Newton, as another candidate!) In his book, The Grand Design, co-authored by Leonard Mlodinow, the following statement occurs, and Radisson quoted all or part of it: Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
There are some problems with using this passage to disprove God's existence. First, as you will see if you go to the Wikipedia article on the book, you will read that by no means all scientists are in agreement with Hawking and Mlodinow, and apparently some who don't agree with them are also unbelievers. Second, why is there gravity at all? (I am sorry that I have yet to read this book -- possibly the authors answer that, but I really doubt it.) Third, as Wheaton pointed out to Radisson, ". . . philosophy is dead." (p. 5)
There was an apologetics advisor for the film. I glimpsed that in the opening credits, but do not recall the name given, and I haven't found it in the movie's web site. Whoever this was, I thought he did a good job. (It was a he. That much I can recall.) At the end of the film, as part of the credits, there was a rather long list of universities that had been sued by Christians (and possibly by some others) for denying Christians their constitutional rights. I'm not sure that any of these were directly related to the subject of the movie. I found one such case on the web site of the Alliance Defense Fund. A student was required to argue in favor of adoption by same-sex couples, and asked for a different assignment, but, instead, was subjected to an examination ". . . for hours about her Christian faith," by a faculty committee. Eventually, apparently after action by the Alliance Defense Fund, she was exonerated, the professor was fired, and she was offered compensation by the university. The credits also said that, at the University I graduated from, the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship was banned as a student organization, and that ruling was overturned, after intervention by the ADF. I checked, and found that that claim seems also to be true.
Is being told that there is no God, by a professor, persecution? I don't think so. Being required to act as if you agreed with it, when you don't, would seem to be, however. I don't think being asked to defend one's beliefs is persecution either, in and of itself. It is often part of a higher education, on all sorts of issues.
At least one university philosophy professor has written in defense of Radisson. One claim he makes is that it is Christian universities who deny freedom of thought, by expecting students and faculty to agree to statements of belief, and then expelling them, or firing them, if they don't live up to such an agreement. To some extent, this is true. However, I was on the faculty of a Christian university for over four decades, and never heard of a student being asked to leave for unbelief. (Some were asked to leave for various kinds of bad behavior.) Some students did not believe, of course. At least a couple of faculty were let go precipitously, also for behavior inconsistent with the university's statement of belief. The professor cited claims that state universities are tolerant of all beliefs, and allow freedom of thought. Cases like the ones mentioned above indicate that freedom of thought isn't always tolerated on secular campuses, in spite of what the professor believes. He makes other claims. Some of them seem to be at least partly valid.
I'm glad that I went to see God's Not Dead. It wasn't the greatest movie ever made, but it was thought-provoking.
Thanks for reading!
* * * * *
Note added, May 21, 2014. I have now read, and discussed, the book by Hawking that was so central to the conflict in the movie. My discussion is here.
June 17, 2014. The Speculative Faith blog has published a review of the film, which points out some of the same flaws as the post above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)