things you hate with a passion

You were allowed to critique use of style etc., but only positive opinions of the characters etc got good grades. The teacher was really biased. I got Bs on most of my papers because I wrote my opinion into the critique and it wasn't what the teacher agreed with. So for the final paper I wrote a [glowing] finale on the Yeoman (the final paper was just an essay on a character of your choice), for which I got and A. I wound up getting an A for the class.

There was a girl in the class that I had several other classes with, so got assignments for each other on sick days, or compared homework etc etc. She got As for almost all her papers, but wrote a scathing paper on the teacher's favorite character "The Wife of Bath" (which is something I had wanted to do the whole time but didn't want to risk it). She received a C and a B for the course.

Complete bullshit on top of having to read that shitty book multiple times.

How about you post the paper instead of just forcing us to assume that your paper is actually good?
 
The point was my paper wasn't as good as a paper with a lower grade because of a biased teacher. And you talk about me not reading what people write.

As far as posting it goes, that was like 7 years ago. I definitely don't keep old homework.
 
The thing is, what's the point of the class? It's just a sandbox. It's so open-ended that you really have no idea what you're going to learn when you go into it. They might as well just call it "Reading 101". How hard is it to just select a random handful of well-known books from around the world and read them on your own?

The point of the class is to introduce you to the very wide breadth of genres, styles, time periods, and forms found in the history of literature. It's just dipping your feet into the pool. It serves two purposes; first, it shows you what is out there, what they mean, how they relate to each other, how they developed, what their historical context is in the span of literature, etc; secondly, by introducing you to so many new things, it allows you to decide what you want to explore further in later courses.

Also, the selection is not any more random than choosing which novels to read in an Edwardian literature class. Also, there's nothing saying the selections are well-known. Do you consider everything that I named well-known? I doubt it. There were more obscure things that we read that I can't even remember, actually.
 
The point was my paper wasn't as good as a paper with a lower grade because of a biased teacher. And you talk about me not reading what people write.

As far as posting it goes, that was like 7 years ago. I definitely don't keep old homework.

You're right, I didn't read it. I assumed you were still moaning about the grade you got. Yet you're still making the assumption that you are as qualified to judge what makes a paper good as the teacher is and that you know that the teacher grades according to whether or not the teacher agrees with you, for which you have no basis. Maybe your paper was better than the girl's.
 
The point of the class is to introduce you to the very wide breadth of genres, styles, time periods, and forms found in the history of literature. It's just dipping your feet into the pool. It serves two purposes; first, it shows you what is out there, what they mean, how they relate to each other, how they developed, what their historical context is in the span of literature, etc; secondly, by introducing you to so many new things, it allows you to decide what you want to explore further in later courses.

Also, the selection is not any more random than choosing which novels to read in an Edwardian literature class. Also, there's nothing saying the selections are well-known. Do you consider everything that I named well-known? I doubt it. There were more obscure things that we read that I can't even remember, actually.

I suppose if I were to call the class pointless fluff, I'd have to call a lot of other college courses the same. I do understand that it's nice to have someone more well-read on a topic to expose you to it, even if it's just grazing the surface of something much deeper.
 
You're right, I didn't read it. I assumed you were still moaning about the grade you got. Yet you're still making the assumption that you are as qualified to judge what makes a paper good as the teacher is and that you know that the teacher grades according to whether or not the teacher agrees with you, for which you have no basis. Maybe your paper was better than the girl's.


/facepalm I never moaned about the grades I got.

My various points were

A. The book "Canterbury Tales" sucked.

B. My final grade was higher than my cumulative total (which obviously for me rocked), whereas the final grade for my class mate was below the cumulative grade.

C. The only reason someone went from writing 'A' Papers to writing a 'C' paper on the last one was because she ripped the character the teacher spent a lot of time praising, and that somehow took her down to a C for the whole class.

So basically , the 2 things i hate with a passion are teachers with a some sort of god complex and shitty required reading.
 
Maybe her paper wasn't as good. It's a crazy hypothesis, no? But you never know.
 
I hate how bumpy the roads are in Maine. I mean, this morning on my way to school, I was drinking coffee, and then it splashed out of the cup when my mom hit a bump, and then it got in my hair.
 
i hate avacado, my girlfriend tried me on avacado sushi. Needless to say it fucking sucked.