| Additional Comments |
Well, many things to say here about "Dr" Pinnick. First, her use of intimidation practices is a. widely noted by most of her students, b. blatantly obvious, and c. a tactic that detracts from any effective, progressive learning. With that main criticism out of the way, you also must be prepared for an insane intensity for a mere 100 level course. I do believe she thinks she is teaching Advanced Logic 550. She will also suggest that the class will lend assistance to people studying for the LSAT. The problem here is two-fold: first, upon discussing with Dr. Pinnick twice what the so-called "applicability" to the LSAT was, it was quite obvious she knew nothing about the test, and second, and more concerning, is that her advice on how to study flat contradicts everything and anything anyone else in this galaxy will tell you about the test. When it's 999/1, trust the 999. Additionally, Dr. Pinnick will never let a person be correct--ever. That was more amusing to me than anything. In class, it is so obvious it was almost funny at certain points. I think she is like a curmudgeonly old nun. Someone had to have pissed in her Post Toasties somewhere down the line to spark her attitude toward other people, her arrogance that covers her insecurity, and her general hostility. Another point of humor--her request for linguistic perfection is quite misplaced. Since I came from 12 years of a Catholic grammar school, I am more than equipped to point out grammatical flubs. From a world of diagramming 100 sentences a day and participating in grammar recitations for 2 hours every morning for 12 years, it was funny to be welcomed back into an environment that forced that type of formalism. Ironically, though, Dr. Pinnick’s OWN OVERHEADS have grammatical problems. HER OWN BOOK, that yes, she wrote, has multiple typos and awkward linguistic construction, and for god’s sake, when she speaks, subject-noun agreement is occasionally off. Sure, I am committing a “you are another†logical fallacy here, but the truth is too amusing not to indict her advocacy here. I do not, nor will I ever advocate for that rigid use of grammar I was forced into for so long, but if I did, I would certainly…oh…USE IT. I'm an A student, and I dropped this because I don't need it for gen ed, and really just signed up for recreation and LSAT prep. Since she knows 0 things about the LSAT, and since she's a belligerent and hostile "instructor" (I don't know if that's the correct use of the word since instructors have to be dedicated to progress and she certainly isn't with her foolish rigidity that literally blocks learning), both of my initial reasons for taking this “class†are now obsolete. I would suggest that even if you do need a basic philosophy class, really any of the other professors would be preferable to this woman.
|
|
|
|
Multiple Choice