Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Tollana: Can we get readings posted more than 24 hours ahead of time so if we want to read them we have a chance to?
Neptune: I appreciated the question prompts today. This makes fostering conversation easier than when we are put in a breakout room and told to simply "discuss"
Hyperion: Good class! I would really appreciate if we could have the reading given a little bit farther in advance. I received the email alerting us to the new readings last night at 7 pm
Felucia: I think at least a few of us didn't know where the readings were posted on Canvas and were unaware of some of the assignments until as late as today as a result. I also would love the reading more in advance than the night before class--it's too difficult to ensure I have given it the attention it deserves otherwise.
Felucia: Also agree with Neptune and appreciated the attention to the tone of discourse in yesterday's feedback.
Messier 83: Class was good. I like the foreperson and the questions in the chat. I'd like a little more lecture on the issue. Also, re: the hypotheticals at the end, I came out differently on them because of the nature of the hypos. Also, I agree with others above about needing more notice of the readings.
Uranus: When it comes to probability / math, it might be useful to simplify and break it down for us, I was unclear about the questions being asked because I didn't quite fully understand the math, so maybe break it down a bit. Agree with others, more time for readings.
Orilla: Class is great, echo everyone on advanced notice of readings. Would have liked to read Dougherty in complete depth but didnt have time to fully engage.
Earth: Regarding these great hypos, maybe one can see it as a 50-50 when you know someone is forsure guilty and someone is forsure innocent. Each person then has a 50% chance that they are guilty and 50% chance of being innocent. The mere fact that more people are added is just confusion on the side but changes nothing as to each individual.
Nilfgaard: Agree with Felucia, I really appreciated Professor Nesson's attempt to address the tone of discourse in the class to try to make this the most open and illuminating class environment as possible. I really hope his comments were construed as picking any sort of side, as I genuinely think he wants us to discuss and learn from each other.
Nilfgaard: *were not
Sirius A: Agreed, more advance notice on the readings would be better. Also, if the professor wants to elicit differing viewpoints on a controversial issue, perhaps he could make a thread for those who "agree" and a separate thread for those who "disagree" to voice their opinions. Each thread will internally be an echo chamber, but each side will have an opportunity to make its strongest case. When the class comes back together, the professor or TAs can bring forward the strongest arguments from both threads. That way, we can get a robust discussion without anyone feeling exposed to retaliation for holding an opinion.
Ross 248: I like that idea
Cantonica: Assigning a foreperson was a good move, it ensured someone started the discussion. Also thought today was MUCH clearer on format/message than other classes - still don't understand the probabilities, but I've spent 26 yrs in the dark so it's alright
Mandalore: I also loved the foreperson assigned to each group, and I agree with the above points about the readings. I would appreciate some more concrete guidance on how to approach these probability issues like the Blue Bus or Gatecrashers issue. I still struggle to see the side other than my own with those examples, so a bit more discussion would be helpful there.
Geonosis: Loved today's class! I felt like the breakout rooms ran a lot smoother and were more productive with a foreperson. It was great to see everyone in the small group have their camera on.
Mygeeto: Would it be possible to get the readings posted to the syllabus earlier? It is difficult for me to work it into my schedule when they are posted at night. Thank you!