SF Chronicle gift article link

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    I think I see the teacher’s attempted point, that the carbon and oxygen are combined into carbon dioxide, the problem is they’re teaching chemistry and don’t know what the difference between products and reactants is.

    Also, they’re fucking stupid because B is definitely an acceptable answer in this example, especially with the poor grammar causing confusion on C.

    Edit: nevermind, missed that there was a published answer key, the teacher is just too arrogant to back down and the board is made of morons.

    • owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 days ago

      Except that everything in that question pointed to the other answer, including the text book’s own answer key. They weren’t attempting to make a point in good faith–they were refusing to admit they’d made a mistake, and doubling down when they were challenged.

      For people like that, admitting you’re wrong is practically immoral, and challenging someone “above” you is abhorrent. Beurocracy and process trump factual correctness.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      I think I see the teacher’s attempted point, that the carbon and oxygen are combined into carbon dioxide

      That teacher’s point was nothing but vacuously true bullshit, purely grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to save face. If that were a valid answer, then every element involved participates in both sides of every reaction, so WTF is the point of making a distinction?

      Other than blatant bad faith, the only possible way for the teacher to make that argument would be if he’s so incompetent he thinks he’s teaching “alchemy” instead of chemistry and shit’s getting transmuted!