- Harold and Maude plays three times this weekend, more or less.
I highly recommend the film.
- The play The Contingency Plan has its U.S. Premiere at Grinnell
this weekend. It sounds great, and I recommend you attend. (Tickets
available at the Bucksbaum box office.)
- AF recommends that you see The Social Network, which is playing
- 10/10/10 is Sunday. If you choose to attend the party on Saturday,
please behave responsibly.
- Please do your best to show up five minutes early for class on Tuesday
so that we can start discussions on time.
- It is particularly important that the discussion leaders show up on time.
- You support your classmates better if you not only do the readings in
advance of class, but also bring the readings to class.
- A quick discussion/voting topic for Tuesday: Should next Thursday's
class be held in Saints Rest (our last meeting in Saints rest) or in
a room where we can more easily post the posters?
- Due on Thursday: Diagrams of our discussions. One bubble per utterance.
Connect utterances in temporal sequence. Illustrate type of utterance,
speaker, relationship to other utterences, etc. (Posterboard and colored
pencils were provided.)
- This week's Tutee meetings are being used to discuss your introductions
again. We will quickly (I hope) determine whether you have met the
citation exercise guidelines. We will then consider the writing in
your introduction and the possible structure of your paper.
- Next week's Tutee meetings will focus on your discussion leadership
- After break, Tutorial will be moving to the Marketplace/Cafeteria.
We are not permitted to reserve PDRs, but we will try to claim
- After break, Tutorial will meet from 8:20-9:50, rather than the current
- Once again, I find myself impressed by how well you discuss as a group.
You raised interesting points, you gave each other the opportunity to
speak, and, most importantly, you're finding a way to ensure that the
discussion remained focused on an issue. (That is, a high percentage
of the comments were followups to the immediately previous comment.)
- There were a few times when I was concerned about the extreme silence
in response to a question. I would hope that when one of your colleagues
is serving as leader, and asks a questions, someone would think "Boy,
someone needs to speak up. I guess it can be me."
- I appreciated the use of a prop, although it would have been nice if
the prop had included the key invention in the patent (which sounded
like it was the chin strap).
- The readings were a bit odd. One was a bit too detailed for anyone to
make it through, the other seemed pretty shallow.
- In an ideal world, we would have gone through the details of the patent
form a bit more just to understand what patents are like.
- I was surprised by how well the leader brought us through the subtle and
potentially complex issues in the short reading.
- I would have preferred that answers to the questions on that reading
could have drawn upon another reading ("What are the motivations for the
suit? "In his article, Smith claims that ...."). However, it's not clear
to me that the other articles could exist.
- The leader had a clear set of notes as to what topics to cover. Those
notes seemed to work well to keep the discussion on track.
- The end of the discussion ended up being about concussions, rather than
patents. While this discussion was clearly off topic, I think the
group found it useful. (This may be a signal to the leader that a
section on concussions and the attitudes of football players would be
valuable in the paper.)
- DON'T BEGIN YOUR DISCUSSION WITH AN APOLOGY! (I hope I never have to
say that phrase again.)
- I appreciate that the leader tried to bring us through the reading.
However, it felt like we often approached the reading with
you think? rather than
What does the author say? (I was
hoping responses from students would also tie to the reading.)
- I worry that we left the big question unanswered: If one cannot patent
nature, how is it that so many genes seem to get patented? (The reading
answers this a bit, which suggests that either the question should not
have been asked, or the reading was not understood.)
- I liked that we had a substantive and clear reading on the subject - not
just news articles and 'blog postings.
- A number of big questions were raised in the discussion (e.g., "Why do
scientists patent genes?" "Given that nature is not patentable, how is
it that genes are patented?"). Since these questions should have
factual answers, it will be useful to address them in the paper.
(I would hope that everyone finds some questions like these in their
discussions. These were just the most obvious.)
- I felt like a number of student comments were met with a response from
the leader of something like "Yeah, that's just what I thought." The
leader should not insert so much of his/her opinion in the discussion.
(Or at least the leader should not do so so explicitly.)
- I appreciate the attempt to use the discussion toolkit. I wish that the
responses had been more serious. There was a serious response (thanks to
CT) but it seemed to get ignored.
- It's troubling that discussion members did not understand the term
"bioprospecting", which is somewhat key to the issues here.
- The readings were quite biased. When using biased readings, it's important
to note the biases early, and not to take them verbatim. So, for example,
when a biased reading claims that "Monsanto would own X", you need some
further evidence that the claim is correct.
- At points, this discussion got a bit bogged down in hypotheticals as to
what should happen when a multinational creates a drug based on a
- I appreciate that the leader had prepared a final statement.
- While the participants need not have looked at the primary literature
(e.g., the patents described in the paper), there would have been benefit
to having the leader do more study of the primary literature. The leader
does have a responsibility to be more informed than the participants.
- This discussion is one in which it was particularly important to hear from
"the other side". While at least one participant raised the issue of
"What incentive do we give to companies?", it would have been useful to
have it approached more explicitly in the readings. (It should certainly
be approached in the paper.)