<p>There is not, as you say, a “cult” around SJC. No need to prevaricate. There are simply students who are thankful that there is a place that provides an education that hasn’t been rendered entirely irrelevant by the “historical insight”. Sure, we challenge the presumption that all human thought is determined by historical contexts. Or, more accurately, we leave that question open. There is nothing stopping us from reading as many commentaries and secondary sources as we like, but it is important to recognize the merely hermeneutical status of those sources; they shouldn’t be treated as authoritative in any real sense. Our pedogogy ultimately aims to free us from dogmas that most conventional institutions cling to (ie. historicism and positivism). You would have to justify those dogmas before your criticism of SJC can be taken seriously.</p>
<p>^Is the jargon really necessary?</p>
<p>Sorry? Truth is, I’m getting a little bit tired of constantly being belittled by those who apparently think that my academic interests are either racist, antiquarian, or quaint.</p>
<p>Apparently, you might think about adding pretentious to that list.</p>
<p>Derek: Using big words does not make one intelligent nor does it make them an intellectual.</p>
<p>I apologize if I came off sounding pretentious. That honestly was not my intention. These criticisms aren’t uncommon and, for me, they’re personal. I’m sorry if my comments did more harm than anything else.</p>
<p>St. John’s College–without a doubt.
Chicago
Tufts
UC Berkeley
Smith</p>
<p>I attacked your religion. I am sorry. I should know better as touching totems are taboo. mea culpa.</p>
<p>I’m getting a little bit tired of constantly being belittled by those who apparently think that my academic interests are either racist, antiquarian, or quaint.</p>
<p>:(
Yes, I am sure it does get old- but you think it is going to get better?
;)</p>
<p>*Speaking of Reed- *
Senior symposium reading list sounds awfully intriquing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^ nary a Great Book in the bunch…</p>
<p>Reed covers them earlier, I believe.</p>
<p>Have not been following this whole discussion, and have no stance to defend here, but I think that what I’ve read of Derek’s posts is not particularly jargon-filled (and believe me, there’s plenty lit crit stuff I can’t even begin to read, so much of it is really jargon-dense.) He uses pretty standard academic terminology, with fairly clear-cut meanings that you’d run into in any upper class undergrad or grad classes in literature, philosophy, history, etc., whether or not the prof was into trendiness. It’s basic language, not jargon. I think pretentiousness accusations are unwarranted.</p>
<p>etondad- Yep, I guess asking you to justify your claim makes me a crusader.</p>
<p>I define jargon in context. Casual forum readers on College Confidential should not be expected to converse in academic terminology.</p>
<p>^^^
One man’s palaver is another man’s jargon.</p>
<p>I would agree in general, Keil, but in the context of a discussion of a particular school’s somewhat esoteric approach to education, the language can easily shift to a different level to make specific points about the rationale and efficacy of that education. It’s not really a casual subject, at that point.</p>
<p>A valid choice to shift, certainly, but the effect is that many readers will perceive the writer as pretentious–also a valid, reasonable opinion under the circumstances.</p>
<p>^^^
Probably all of that discussion of specifics wasn’t necessary for the posters to make their points, but I just gave them the benefit of the doubt and assumed that’s how they normally converse. At least they didn’t use four redundant polysyllabic words to express a simple thought - it looks like they pretty much used the most precise words, to the extent I could understand what they were talking about.</p>
<p>Plus, I learned what Bionian is. Thank God for wikipedia. I’m sure that’ll come in handy.</p>
<p>^These little intrusions of the language of criticism remind me why I decide halfway through my freshman year that whatever else I did with my life I was not going into academics. I learned a new word too!</p>
<p>From now on, when discussing programs in economics, we are not to use the terms Keynsianism, monetarism, or heaven help us, rational expectations theory. “U of C is quite decent in macro, if you dont mind a real business cycle approach” will also be deemed pretentious jargon.</p>
<p>Sociology dept discussions cannot use the term fundamentalism. Marxism can be used, but only in the sense that anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan is a “Marxist” Any other usage is academic jargon.</p>
<p>Discussing architecture programs the terms post modern and deconstructivism should be avoided. </p>
<p>Your help is appreciated.</p>
<p>"language of criticism "</p>
<p>I thought positivism was a term from intellectual history, and philosophy, and history of social science. Comte (whom I did have to look up, but ONLY cause I have senior moments) and even the late 19th c govts in Latin America and all that. Ive also heard of logical positivism (different, analytic phil) and postivisit economics (vs welfare economics) and in the context of Judaism, historical positivism (the idea at the root of Conservative Judaism)</p>