A good teacher .

[Charlie_051181]

Once upon a time , there was a teacher, named Ruckus ,considered to be the most " clever" man .One day he went in a classroom and bloomed out the first sentence " Have you prepared the lesson today ? " , all of the students said " No " . He was a bit happy and continued " How lazy you are . I do not want to teach such lazy students " as soon as he stopped speaking he went out of the class without saying any word .
The second day no sooner did he come in the class than asked " have you prepared the lesson today ? " , one half of students answered " Yes " and the half left said " No" , he smiled angreely and strongly said " the students those who have prepared the lesson will teach those who have not prepared it " ,after that he quietly left the room . The thirst day he started the lesson with his precious question " Have you prepared the lesson today ? " the whole class said " Yes" , for a short moment he said " Well , all of you have prepared the lesson , so you understood what it meant already . I have no thing to say " . He quited the lesson and went out in the big surprise if students .

[Sharky]

He's a really good teacher, isn't he? I think the essence of this story is that teachers are the guiders, not the doers for students. They just guide us what we have to do and it's up to us to find out how to do it.
However, I'm thinking about the last sentences the teacher said: "all of you have prepared the lesson , so you understood what it meant already . I have no thing to say". Having prepared the lesson before going to class does not mean that we understand what the lesson is really about. The purpose of preparation is that it can be easier and faster for us to understand what the teachers are going to say in the class. Once we have gone through the coming lecture, we may find out what we are not sure about. It's the moment when teachers' roles of explaning and expanding the theory and the problems are important.

[ICQ]

He's a really good teacher, isn't he? --> Nonononono, he is not a good teacher at all, he doesn't know any thing except what is written in the text book, so he doesn't have real ability, which is vital to a good teacher. This teacher can be described as a sly teacher but not a good teacher, don't you think so.

[Sharky]

Haha, there are many kinds of teachers and so are there of students :). One kind of students just want everything to be explained by the teachers and don't bother to dig into the problems themselves. The other kind can manage their own study with only some assistance from their lecturers when they need. Research students is a good example.
Actually, if we work hard enough and have an acceptable level of intelligence, there should be no compelling reason why we can't survive without teachers!

Let's take the way we study here, in Australia as another example. We have lecture notes and other necessary study materials. Once a week, we have a one or two hour lecture and one tutorial of the same time length for each subject. We Business students only have nearly 15 hours per week for all 4 subjects, do you think that we can learn much from our lectures without preparation? Of course not, we have to self study most of the time. Many of my friends, they don't need to go the lectures or tutorials at all. They prefer staying at home, reading the textbooks and solving problems themselves. And what they have achieved is really admirable. If you want to know some "real people with real achievements" then I can let you know :)

[ICQ]

Hihi, please notice again why I said Ruckus who is not a good teacher, but a sly or a clever teacher. Anyway, the word clever doesn't refer that he is good at his field of study but his way of teaching.
You argued with me that self study is very importance, it's true, but I think you're wrong when you said that selfstudy mean that you don't need a teacher, especially with a competent teacher.
Your tale " Many of my friends, ....And what they have achieved is really admirable" reminded me about a friend I met in a exchange studying experience confference, he had a very good study result by selfstudy, and his key was " In University, the teacher is not reliable, you have to self study if you want to get a good result in Uni" he himself usually played truant to get selfstudy-time, and with that way of study he got the everage mark is over 9, which is really difficult in my Uni. ( Of course which is quite different with me, a person who try hard to attend all lectures.)
So it is, selfstudy is very important and without it you can not success. But turn again the problem and I want to compare between 100%selfstudy and study with the instructure of a teacher.
You may point out imediately that, the balance will lend weight to a student who study with a good teacher and it will porn to the student who study all the thing themself if the teacher is poor in ablity.
Why the friend I met was so tired of listening to teacher, (so it leads him to study)? It is because the teacher who teach him is not a good one. Then why I became the student who feel the lecture is unbereftable, it's because I had chance to study with all good teachers, who made me admire in their abilities, I was studying in Lam Son, then in high quallity program in university and now too. Notice you, I got the better result of study than the friend I told you above. And I doesn't mean to told you that I relied only to the teacher and don't know of selfstudy, if it's , I'm not the person you knew.
Now you see how important the teacher is, the good teacher is the teacher who know how to give appetize of study to the students by their lecture, which I mean their abilities.
Turn back to Mr. Ruckus, what do you think he will say in the forth day if he know only what is written in the text book, what happened if the students will all say that they have prepared for the lecture , may he only checks for the students who didn't prepare ? You may argue that, he is a "good" teacher so he will know what to say the next day!! Even though, could it make him a "good" teacher? Study with him I 'd rather 100% selfstudy, I mean he is a bad teacher.

[Sharky]

Ruckus is just like an ironic subject built to smear those who are irresponsible to what they have to do . In this case , he has no importance whatsoever , without enthusiasm and quality of a teacher but very adept at rationalising with purpose of being able to avoid the charge under any case .
Why the author finally let him go out of the class in the " big surprise" of the students , revealing that those poor students were cheated unconciously , and strongly criticizing that bad teacher .
Think of speaking ways nowadays , poeple may not directly say what you should do or how badly you have done smth .On the way of their speaking , at first hearing we misthink that they are enthusing or complimenting , for a long moment with careful ponder on what we've done , we can know exactly what they mean . Ruckus' story was an example .

Charlie, next time, pls post what has the same topic in the same place so that it's easier to follow and economical for our forum's space :). I moved it here. Sharky

[Sharky]

Hehe, after several busy days that kept me away from this forum, I received a lot of interesting arguments :).

I think you're wrong when you said that selfstudy mean that you don't need a teacher, especially with a competent teacher

And I, I think that you didn't read what I wrote carefully :). What I did say is that:

The other kind can manage their own study with only some assistance from their lecturers when they need. Research students is a good example.
Actually, if we work hard enough and have an acceptable level of intelligence, there should be no compelling reason why we can't survive without teachers!

For the first sentence, definitely, I saw nowhere that I meant we didn't need teachers.
For the second sentence, as you may see it, I wanted to expand the first sentence. And even without the first sentence, I don't think that the sentence itself has any thing wrong. I believe that with someone who is hardworking and intelligent, s/he himself can read the books himself and can understand its content. The normal duties of the teachers include explaining the lecture content to the students and answering any question raised. If the students have studied everything carefully and smart enough, it's very easy for him/her to catch up with other students.

Don't generalize what I said because I just wonder how you would understand the word "survive". By that very word, I didn't want to emphasize self study and ignore teacher-assisted study. Of course, we all know that survive, an exam for example, is really different from getting good knowlegde or even high marks in our study.

Ruckus is just like an ironic subject built to smear those who are irresponsible to what they have to do . In this case , he has no importance whatsoever , without enthusiasm and quality of a teacher but very adept at rationalising with purpose of being able to avoid the charge under any case.
Why the author finally let him go out of the class in the " big surprise" of the students , revealing that those poor students were cheated unconciously , and strongly criticizing that bad teacher.

Hey guys, is it too early to conclude that Ruckus is such a bad and irresponsible teacher without enthusiasm and quality? This story seems to have an end, but that end can't really tell any thing apart from a joke.
I think that different people can understand that story in a different ways. For you and Charlie, you think that he's not a qualified teacher (who knows?) because he didn't explain anything for the students. For me, Mr. Ruckus a good teacher because he ignited the sense of dependence and self study from the students.

ICQ thought about the fourth day but you didn't think about the several first day. What if Ruckus had continued to teach the students when knowing that they hadn't prepared the lectures? Can a good teach do so? Trying to explain everthing for students when they don't even bother to prepare for it?
Why don't you think that this story only happens once, not always, Ruckus did just once to let the students know that they should not rely too much on the lecturers, they themselves have to study before class?
ICQ had his own "fourth day" when "Ruckus knows only what is written in the text book, what happened if the students will all say that they have prepared for the lecture , may he only checks for the students who didn't prepare ?". And I, I also had my own :). Here it is:

<span style='color:blue'>"Ruckus appeared in the class explained what he did last time so that all the students could understand. This time, he asked: "You have prepared and it means you can understand the lesson. I feel sorry that last time no one called me back and said that you wanted to understand the lesson in a greater depth or wanted to go over the extent of the lesson". </span>

Lastly, I just want to say that the way we look at the problem and other things in life is different. For me, I am an optimistic person and normally see the good things inside others. For you two, maybe you are more practical and view the story in an different angle. If so, there should be no more arguments abt that. Any way, you did give very good arguments. I like them very much, and if you still want to continue then I am happy to do the same :)