It has been mentioned in the past that our Andy plies his trade as a teacher of home-schooled children (in between acting as legal council for a bunch of quacks). Whilst I have nothing against home-schooling per se, I have a great deal against his method of home-schooling.
Not content with putting together shabby, half-complete – and often incorrect – lectures, with facts twisted to suit his own bizarre world-view (anybody claiming that Columbus was not the first to reach America is, of course, a liberal liar. Tell that to Lief Ericson.), he also imposes that world-view on his unwitting students. During his last lecture series on American History (or rather Andy Schlafly’s View of American History), he set different final exams for his male and female students, because he seriously believes that girls are different intellectually to boys (and should bake more cookies). The ultimate irony was that he window-dressed this sexism as “chivalry”.
But more on that little saga in another post.
This time round, he’s teaching “World History”. Yup, covering the entire history of the world (well, the 6,000 years since he thinks it was created anyway) in 14 lectures. For now, I thought I’d have a look at one lecture in particular, as well as his measured and reasonable responses to anybody who dares query his content.
“World History Lecture 11” covers the period from 1900 to the Great Depression and opens with the following gem: “The Modern era is from 1900 to today. We learn it beginning with this lecture.” It sort of goes downhill from there. I’ll leave you, dear reader, to plough through the turgid mess because I want to focus on some of the more obvious errors, and how he, as an educator (I use the term in it’s broadest possible context) deals with those queries. Just please bear in mind at all times: This man is teaching children!
What makes this even more fun is that the debates which followed are taken from his collection of “model” answers – most of which are laughable and show a) just how little he knows about history and b) just how poor his examination technique is. It is also worth mentioning that the homework tests and answers, as well as marks, are all available on a public wiki, for all and sundry to see. Given Andy’s insistence that editors sign up using their first name and initial of their surname (which is in contravention of COPPA where under 13’s are concerned) even the student’s names are more or less known. Nice going!
Ok, first up – who won WW1? A helpful editor points out that Andy has accepted a whole slew of answers, varying from:
- The Allies won the “Great War” or World War I in 1918
- The Triple Entente won World War I.
- The Allies (Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, and United States) won World War I. and even
- Britain, France, Russia, and America gained more power and land than any other country, but they all lost a large amount of men in World War I
The editor mentions that Russia wasn’t represented at Versailles, the triple entente was dead in 1918 and Russia lost more land and population than any other country. However, he made the fatal mistake of spelling “suburban” incorrectly. So, how did the great educator reply to this?
Your rant is a criticism looking for a flaw. The problem is that you haven’t found a flaw. I don’t think any of my students tried to use a word “suburbian” either, as you do.
If you can identify a specific error, then let’s see it. So far, you haven’t been able to do that, although obviously you are trying very hard.
Er, yes, I blinked too. But wait it gets better. The editor, now confused, apologises for the spelling mistake and points out that based on the lecture, Andy’s students should, at the very least, be able to identify the actual winners of WW1.
Andy roars back:
Clement, failing to find a specific error, you resort to vague generalities, questionable opinion, and debatable semantics (e.g., a dominion is subservient to the British monarch as a colony is). Again, your lack of specificity reflects a lack of identifiable errors.
And then the old Schlafly fall-back, when he’s run out of excuses:
You also seem excessively critical. Are you as critical of liberals, or this yet another example of a double standard common among liberals?
If he’s critical, it’s because you’re teaching garbage, you idiot and yet you are somehow convinced that you are above such criticism. I wish I could find out the addresses of the children he teaches, so I could post this to their parents. The scary thing is, they probably think along similar lines. I weep for America’s future.
Andy then goes on the offensive, claiming:
(The editor) claimed that Canada was not a colony of Britain during WWI, but everything I’ve seen demonstrates that Canada was not yet independent.
Quick as a flash, resident bullyboy and toady Terry Koeckritz jumps into the fray, with a quote that either proves he is a complete buffoon, or – as most of us suspect – a clever, albeit disgusting – troll. He starts off by slobbering “You are completely correct, Andy,” and then throws it all away.
He pulls up a quote from Allexperts, which can be found here. What is classic is the final line of the quote.
Thus, by 1931, Canada and the other Dominions had become “autonomous communities…equal in status” to Great Britain.”
Psst, Terry Koeckritz… you’re supposed to be supporting Andy, you troll.
Andy, now realizing that he’s getting his ass handed to him on a plate – and by his fellow sysop too – now gets personal and childish, but not before the editor loses his temper. He says, You stated that I seem to be excessively critical. May I observe that you seem to be quite opinionated? How many edits did it take to drive home my point that Russia didn’t win the Great War? And after a lengthy – rather inquisitive – discussion, you seem to concede the point. But you don’t do so on the page where the discussion was held, but elsewhere.”
Now Andy – back to the wall – gets petulant.
I’d just ask you if you’ve ever been so nit-picky about any teacher or textbook you’ve had in the past. The answer is almost certainly “no”. And realizing that creates an opportunity for you to open your mind the way that the Prodigal Son did when he finally admitted that he would be far better off as the lowest servant on his father’s estate than as his own arrogant master who always insisted he must somehow be right. Put another way, Clement, how many hours and weeks and years of your own time have you donated to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them?
The editor answers heroically,
Yes, I have always been a stickler for precision. In class, I would have pointed out a blunder like enumerating Russia with the winners of the Great War at once, while I would have commented on a minor question of taste (clearly, dominion is preferable to colony) afterward. In my experience, the better teachers could answer my critique – or at least, postponed a discussion – while other teachers took refuge in sarcasm or distraction.
more than thirty hours a week: I’m a teacher (History, Math) in Germany.
Ouch! Andy’s ass get handed to him again. Which means that suddenly, the editor has lost credibility. (Don’t try and follow the thought processes, you’ll go mad.)
Clement, I don’t believe for a moment that you “donate” “more than thirty hours a week” “to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them.” Perhaps you’d like to change your answer to something more credible.
But wait! It gets better.
Nearly every one of your postings here includes a puerile, sneering remark. You’re almost certainly a liberal who’s here to push your misguided ideology rather than genuinely help anyone learn.
You’ve lost credibility for me. I don’t believe you’ve complained to a single textbook editor, as you claim (without details), and I don’t believe that you’re a teacher in Germany. Not many German teachers post on the internet in early morning hours there, as you have. Perhaps you’re an aspiring German actor? You do persist in your childish snide remarks in nearly every posting; you might try pursuing an acting career in sarcastic comedy, though I doubt you’ll be very successful at it.
Just re-read that last sentence again. Does Andy not see the irony in being sneering and sarcastic, when accusing somebody – who is trying to help him – of being sneering and sarcastic.
I’d add more, but I feel ill right now. Feel free to read the whole sorry saga here. Suffice to say, Andy has given us a wonderful example of what a nasty, insecure, little man he is.
In addition, given CP’s habit of deep-burning anything they don’t like, images have been made of lecture 11, the model answers and the talk page, which will be provided should Andy (or more likely Wormtongue himself, TK) censor the evidence.