Engaged Pedagogy

I LOVED reading Hook's writing. This sort of thing gets me really excited because I have learned about these concepts. In Currins 100, an intro to teaching class, we learned about and discussed the "banking concept", and that it is not the right way to teach. Students do not learn anything when they sit in front of professor or teacher that feeds them information so they can spit it back out on a piece of paper. Teaching "Engaged Pedagogy", or teaching with an holistic outlook is the right way to teach, and students get the most out of it. On pg. 72 Hooks says "Engaged Pedagogy necessarily values student expression." Students not only learn from their teacher, but they also learn from their peers and their own expression and ideas, and the teachers also learn from their students. In order for educators to teach this holistic way, they have to have self-actualization themselves. Once a teacher feels as though they can reach their full potential, they are able to teach their students to do the same. The world needs more teachers who take this approach seriously in order for their students to become engaged in their education in the classroom.

Inventing the University--Education

"Education may well be, as of right, the instrument whereby every individual, in a society like our own, can gain access to any kind of discourse." Understanding this first sentence to Bartholomae's epigram is key in understanding the relationship between success in academic discourse. In order to write academically about a certain subject you have to be educated about it. If you are uneducated in science, for example, and have to write an essay on a subject of science, your essay would not turn out very well. When you are educated in science you know and understand the dialect used in the subject and are then able to write an essay and not only sound like you know what you're talking about, you actually do know what you're talking about. I believe that education is the most important tool in life. Not only will it help you gain access to discourse, it is key in gaining access to anything at all.

Where do I begin? This is written identical to Frankfurts' "On Bullshit". Every other sentence seems like a question to another question Eubanks and Schaeffer just posed. The two articles, "A Kind Word for Bullshit" and "On Bullshit", continuously take their readers in circles. The minute I start to think I have something down the next sentence takes me to another concept of what bullshit means and how bullshit and lying are different or similar, or the same or the complete opposite, or whatever.
Eventually I found a way to get something out of this article, or at least make myself believe I'm getting something...bullshitting myself maybe? Probably. When I find a sentence that actually makes some sort of connection in my brain I write it down. Then throughout the rest of the article, anything that is comparable or similar and connects with that sentence I write it down. In the end I can usually come up with some conclusion, whether it is right or not, about a concept in the article.
For example, I keep hearing that a bullshitter is not a liar because they are extracted from the truth, and that they are misrepresenting themselves and not misrepresenting true facts necessarily. "According to Frankfurt, bullshit does not necessarily involve a misrepresentation of the facts, but must involve the misrepresentation of the self--one's feelings, thoughts or attitudes. "
I feel like I can maybe decipher between bullshit and a lie, but I have yet to make a solid connection to what academic bullshit is, or the point that any of the authors are attempting to make. If anyone has any insight, you should let me know!