Whose side are you on? [assignment edition - mod edit] (2 Viewers)

[Krodwhodat]

Your company has insurance, right?

So you know why you have a "policy" that comes with every endorsement, exclusion, definition etc.

Because if the insurer didnt, while they may have INTENT to NOT cover a particular loss, if it aint excluded, its included.

Words matter.

IM sure your bids dont go out with 1 line scope of work saying " RENOVATION"

Right?

no they don’t but most contracts are written where things can be interpreted differently and the you go to mediation or arbitration and I’ve more than I care to discuss where the contractor is told they knew the intent of the specifications but chose not to follow.

The student knew the intent of the teacher he just tried to outsmart him.

 

[SWJJ]

no they don’t but most contracts are written where things can be interpreted differently and the you go to mediation or arbitration and I’ve more than I care to discuss where the contractor is told they knew the intent of the specifications but chose not to follow.

The student knew the intent of the teacher he just tried to outsmart him.

In this case the department chair served as arbitrator.
The arbitrator said the student was right.

 

[SWJJ]

The student knew the intent of the teacher he just tried to outsmart him.

this is a rubbish take.

 

[Hoodoo]

I don't understand how ANYONE can be siding with the teacher unless they are just an authoritarian bootlicker.


How is what the student was trying to do different than someone who turned in a sheet paper and got a sheet grade for one of the earlier assignments?

I absolutely had senior level classes in college where my professors had a similar policy.

We had 5 exams (4 during the year and a final.) The professor let you drop your lowest test score and each of the other tests counted for 25% of your grade.

If you were happy with your grade, you could skip the final and drop the "0" from that test.

This is NOT a "loophole." The teacher is trying to make it so that the policy is not equally applied to better students, and makes it so that it only benefits poor students.

There is a GOOD REASON that the Department Chair made the teacher honor his policy.



Y'all siding with the teacher is wild to me.

Absolutely no one in this thread is "siding with the teacher."

 

[gboudx]

Absolutely no one in this thread is "siding with the teacher."

Krod is. Page 2.

 

[Hoodoo]

In this case the department chair served as arbitrator.
The arbitrator said the student was right.

Had I been arbitor, I would have sided with the student as well.

 

[SWJJ]

Absolutely no one in this thread is "siding with the teacher."

I’m with the teacher. He emailed the teacher and we all know what the teacher meant, at least I hope we did. It’s pretty evident that he wanted the work done. It didn’t have to be A worthy but putting you name and title is doing nothing. This kid knew better but decided to test the teacher.

 

[jboss]

Why are contracts even being talked about? This is about a specific school's policy described in the syllabus. And if that post is correct it is the school's, not the teacher's, policy. And the department chair sided with the student, or to phrase it better, followed the policy. The school put the policy in for a reason, whatever it may be.

So what's all this talk about the "teacher's intent"? It was never the teacher's intent to begin with. The contention with the teacher's intent is as much nitpicking as the student's intent. The student had a specific reason to do this, they were very busy and this would only busy them more. It's not like they were pulling a Bart Simpson, doing this just to f with the teacher.

If anything, the teacher's objection is more of a dick move. Is it that big a deal to you you're gonna drag the front office into the matter, arguing against a school policy, to give your student a worse grade? Who does that help? The teacher? The student? Literally what does that accomplish?

 

[Hoodoo]

Krod is. Page 2.

Again, there is a difference between agreeing with the teacher's perspective and following the letter of the contract. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[SWJJ]

Again, there is a difference between agreeing with the teacher's perspective and following the letter of the contract. The two are not mutually exclusive.

dude, he LITERALLY said "I'm with the teacher"

 

[efil4stnias]

no they don’t but most contracts are written where things can be interpreted differently and the you go to mediation or arbitration and I’ve more than I care to discuss where the contractor is told they knew the intent of the specifications but chose not to follow.

The student knew the intent of the teacher he just tried to outsmart him.

it went to mediation.

Student prevailed.

Intent does not have a place in contractual arrangements unless specifically defined.

Which is exactly why your scope of work NEVER says "renovations" . Take that to mediation and see what happens. If you intend for me to do drywall at $1.00 per saure foot, but dont put that in our contract- just put " prevailing rate for drywall installation" - while your intent was to pay me $1.00/sq ft, your contract says differently.

Thats the point. Teacher should have been much more succinct in his rubric.

 

[SystemShock]

I’m with the teacher. He emailed the teacher and we all know what the teacher meant, at least I hope we did. It’s pretty evident that he wanted the work done. It didn’t have to be A worthy but putting you name and title is doing nothing. This kid knew better but decided to test the teacher.

He emailed the teacher asking for clarification, and the teacher replied the student had to submit "something", which the student did, and what the student submitted, was in accordance to the teacher's grading rubric, which gives 5 point for just for name and title, which would indicate that's the accepted minimum amount of work that can be turned in; the student gave name, title, and summary.

If the teacher wants "the work done", the teacher definitely should not give points for just name and title. By awarding points for just name and title, the teacher de facto set the minimum requirements accepted for an assignment to be deemed complete.

If the teacher wanted the work done, the teacher should've stated as much in the syllabus.

 

[Hoodoo]

What the teacher should have done in the first place was tell the student that their last project was not necessary given the previous projects that were submitted. The teacher was in the wrong in making the student submit another project. That said, the student should have taken the high road and either completed a full project with minimal effort or stood his ground and refused based on what the policy stated. Instead, he chose to stoop below the teacher's level just to make a point. They were both in the wrong, but the student did technically follow the policy. Unless you are a lawyer, that type of attitude won't win you any friends in business.

 

[SystemShock]

What the teacher should have done in the first place was tell the student that their last project was not necessary given the previous projects that were submitted. The teacher was in the wrong in making the student submit another project. That said, the student should have taken the high road and either completed a full project with minimal effort or stood his ground and refused based on what the policy stated. Instead, he chose to stoop below the teacher's level just to make a point. They were both in the wrong, but the student did technically follow the policy. Unless you are a lawyer, that type of attitude won't win you any friends in business.

Shouldn't it be the teacher the one taking the high road and admitting that what the student delivered was to a tee within the parameters the teacher themselves set forth at the beginning of the school period?

Did the student stoop below the teacher's level, or did the student demand that the teacher honor the very rules the teacher set forth to begin with?

 

[sfidc3]

I agree. From a business perspective there is a difference between following the letter of the contract and thumbing your nose at the contractee. It sets the stage for a contentious business relationship and will likely cost you in the future.

If this is an attempt at an analogy it's one of the worst I've seen.....this is a teacher student relationship not a long term business relationship....why would you introduce a non existent scenario?

Which, again, is why I side with the student from a technical perspective and the teacher from a moral perspective.

In contracts, legalities, and in this case a lesson/grading plan why would you assume morality applies to any of it?