Guess we'll see how much Trump hates Baldwin's impersonation and how much he's just a whiny little bitch, because Baldwin has offered to stop doing the impersonation....in exchange for Trump's tax returns.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Best researchers = best research schools. But what about teaching? It's a completely different skillset, and is frankly much more relevant to most students who are just there to get an undergraduate degree and a decent job. How do institutions measure the quality of instruction?
Except that the vast majority of those schools are not research schools. You're making a massive jump that the top researchers cannot be great instructors. My experience, having been through several schools, and having worked at a few others, is there is little difference between professors who have a research commitment and those who do not. The important aspect is engagement. When researchers are in writing mode they seem to disengage and focus on their research. Fortunately when they are engaged in their research they usually have no class load to be concerned about. So this is a bit of a red herring point IMO. Faculty at research universities with research commitments have a lesser class load because of their publication requirement. Good instructors are just good instructors, regardless of research commitments.
You do ask a great question. How do institutions measure the quality of instruction? More importantly, how do they figure out who their best instructors are? These are questions institutions are trying to figure out. Educause has been trying to answer this question for a while, and there has been no consensus reached. As it is, most schools rely on a combination of factors, like outcomes (grades/test scores), observation, and student evaluations. The problem I see with this system is it is not holistic in nature. The student measures are all contemporaneous and do not address future results.
For example, I use a method of self-discovery for students. I give them bread crumbs to follow to many issues during the course with the intent of finding the connections between the subject matter they are learning, and then much larger issues or themes in society itself. I let students know that they will have an a-ha moment at some point because of the class. It may happen during the class, it may happen during their stay at the institution, or it may happen in the future. At some point it will happen. Measuring the efficacy of this is very difficult. Some students don't get it in the short term. But I will routinely get emails from students who have that a-ha moment later and then rave about what an impact my class had on them as a student, and more importantly, a critical thinker. This is the most important thing to me. Any schmuck can stand up in front of a classroom and lecture. But an instructor that can reach students, change their perspective, and have them approach all matters using critical thinking skills, well that is a keeper and what every institution should strive for. These were the instructors that pushed me and the ones that made school both fun and rewarding.
Personally, I'd like to see a review system where the student is required to do evaluations (evaluations are not required by most schools), after each class and then at the terminus of their degree. Make it mandatory. Don't release the degree until this is complete. I think that by going down this road you will find out who your most influential and best faculty are. I know from personal experience this would be a massive game changer.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Just tried watching Saturday Night Live - unwatchable! Totally biased, not funny and the Baldwin impersonation just can't get any worse. Sad
To be honest, he is right on this one. Baldwin has done some funny stuff playing Trump but yesterday was not very good and the entire episode was pretty awful.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Just tried watching Saturday Night Live - unwatchable! Totally biased, not funny and the Baldwin impersonation just can't get any worse. Sad
So unwatchable, every week!
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
To be honest, he is right on this one. Baldwin has done some funny stuff playing Trump but yesterday was not very good and the entire episode was pretty awful.
I don't care how horrible it was, that's not the point. The guy is going to be president soon, but he's so thin-skinned he can't handle people on a comedy show that poke fun of him. Guess we better get used to tweets like that since people won't be stopping for the next 4 years.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
Trump doesn't realize (maybe he's too stupid to know) that his rants on social media only fuel the fire. The more he whines the more parodies he'll see. He'd be wise to ignore them.
Trump doesn't realize (maybe he's too stupid to know) that his rants on social media only fuel the fire. The more he whines the more parodies he'll see. He'd be wise to ignore them.
why? fueling the fire isn't the worse thing. It may make the Liberals look worse.
To me it's crazy how comedy shows have chosen a side. In the past Johnny Carson would impersonate Ronald Reagan or Dana Carvey would impersonate Geroge Bush Sr and it would all be in good fun. Now it's with vicious intent.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
Jimmy Fallon was playing with Trump's hair so they haven't all taken a side. But Trump was considered mostly a joke before he ran, and his continued susceptibility to childish rants only makes him one of the easiest targets in human history. It won't just be American comedians, every comedian worldwide is going to tee off on him. But his narcissism means he can't ignore them, further fueling the cycle. It's on him to ignore, if he engages he's asking for it.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
why? fueling the fire isn't the worse thing. It may make the Liberals look worse.
To me it's crazy how comedy shows have chosen a side. In the past Johnny Carson would impersonate Ronald Reagan or Dana Carvey would impersonate Geroge Bush Sr and it would all be in good fun. Now it's with vicious intent.
Trump poses a unique challenge for comedians. By and large, good comedy is done with a degree of affection for its subject. It's very hard to do venomous comedy (and have it still be funny, rather than bitter or cruel). But Trump isn't a subject who is easy to have any affection for, or to portray with any degree of sympathy.
He's also hard to parody, since he's basically a comedic act in his own right.
Personally, I hope they continue to lampoon him even if it isn't funny. Free speech is the best thing the Yanks have going for them, and it'll be interesting to see how Trump handles that once his Bannon-led Department of Truth is up and running.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flylock shox For This Useful Post:
I don't care how horrible it was, that's not the point. The guy is going to be president soon, but he's so thin-skinned he can't handle people on a comedy show that poke fun of him. Guess we better get used to tweets like that since people won't be stopping for the next 4 years.
Yeah, but are talking about him making two major transgressions against foreign policy in two days, or are we talking about his stupid tweets? The point made in the sketch was right on the money in that regard. His tweets are a distraction from the ####ups he makes while trying to do the job he is completely incapable of doing.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Yeah, but are talking about him making two major transgressions against foreign policy in two days, or are we talking about his stupid tweets? The point made in the sketch was right on the money in that regard. His tweets are a distraction from the ####ups he makes while trying to do the job he is completely incapable of doing.
Is that your liberal bias showing, or are you just happy to see me?
Just because he's incapable and unwilling to do the job doesn't mean you or the media can say so out loud. And yes, ranting on twitter like a wronged teenager is foolish and unbefitting of a man in his position, but I can totally see you are a LIBERAL for mentioning it.
__________________
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
why? fueling the fire isn't the worse thing. It may make the Liberals look worse.
To me it's crazy how comedy shows have chosen a side. In the past Johnny Carson would impersonate Ronald Reagan or Dana Carvey would impersonate Geroge Bush Sr and it would all be in good fun. Now it's with vicious intent.
It's not crazy to me at all, because this isn't normal. This isn't a normal situation where someone won the election and half the electorate isn't a fan, even though the winner is still basically competent, half-way intelligent, and (mostly) has good intentions for the nation. It's not exactly easy for comedians when an unpredictable, racist demagogue is in charge.
See what I mean? You're full of crap. You just want to whine about comedians making fun of your boy.
You lost, get over it. As for making fun of Trump I don't care in the slightest, just realize the more vicious the attacks become the more people it turns off.
