When we were asked what we took away from the unlecture #3 all I could really answer was that Adrian doesn’t like questions that demean the course. While I understand his reaction, I thought the way he dealt with it contradicted some of the approaches we are being taught. The question, something along the lines of “Why should I come to the lecture if it doesn’t relate to the content in the tutes?” admittedly sounds curt. One positive thing that really resonated with me was Adrian’s response, “Why don’t you make it relevant?” That was a really clever way of turning the question back around, and asking the student to reevaluate what they want from their course, how they think they will achieve it, and how the can use the course so that it works for them.

However, I had a problem that Adrian tore shreds off this person for such a long time, despite saying he “appreciated” the question, and was “grateful”, that didn’t translate. At all. To me, it just seemed very hypocritical. We are being taught that we need to question the learning structures we are a part of. Why do we do essays? What is the point of the “system”? What are its inherent flaws? How does this structure aid us in our real lives? Or is it, in fact, more of a hindrance? This kind of critical thinking is something Adrian encourages and I think it is important to question the norms accept. I found it confronting that this critical thinking and questioning of the education system is really hammered into us, but this one person asks a (pretty relevant) question and they get attacked, for forty minutes. If I had been the person who had asked the question I think I would have said something.

I also found it harsh and a little close-minded to say this person wouldn’t get a job if they told their employer they had asked this question at university. I think it shows a deep level of critical thinking, a skill required in many job positions. I thought about how many employers would appreciate the bluntness of this person, and the fact that they thought outside the square. Why are we being told to reject the cookie-cutter style of learning when, apparently, we can’t be ourselves in the workplace/real world anyway? I also don’t agree with Adrian when he says people who do not appreciate this learning model are not suited to inventive positions that involve risk or leadership. Wasn’t this person taking a risk in asking such a controversial question? If someone likes a syllabus and instructions, that doesn’t make them weak, or unsuited to a leadership position. They could be even more suited to a leadership position because they are thorough and meticulous. The fact that they are questioning our current learning environment shows that they aren’t a follower, doesn’t it?

The way the question was handled made me uncomfortable because my blog revolves around working through questions I have based on the course and its material. Is this going to be an issue?