what’s wrong with this? 1994 is indeed the late 1900s, and it’s 31 years ago so depending on the topic they’re writing on, it could be immensely outdated
To answer the question: The professor assumes the email referred to 1900-1910 with “late 1900s”. As this was normal 20 years ago (and still gets used). He then gets upset realising the age difference between him and his student was likely the main contributor to this incorrect assumption.
I assumed they might be working in certain fields of science where the most progress is very recent so old papers will be very incomplete and sometimes even wrong.
My field is particle physics and while a paper from 1994 wouldn’t be completely useless, I would need to check if recent papers still confirm the same results.
It depends on what field you’re studying. Some fields of study, like social studies, move very quickly. So it’s not uncommon for someone studying one of those subjects to exclude research that’s even 10 to 15 years old because things move so quickly.
A different subject, say hydrologic engineering has been studied for hundreds of years and doesn’t change very quickly. So a publication from 1994 could be just as valid today as it was then. Every topic is different and without more context the meme as is, is just meant to incite a reaction. Not to tell us about something that actually happened.
Yeah, I’d sooner say the situation is reverse, social studies would move slower and less “definitively” than natural sciences. I’m into linguistics and literature and for me it’s nothing unusual to use scholarship and materials all the way from the 19th century. Of course, when you’re working with old literature or old language, you need old materials too… To me it’s very interesting and important to know what Aristotle thought of Homer, while it’s perfectly irrelevant for a doctor to know what Galen thought of the humours or for a chemist what Newton thought of alchemy.
Very much depending on the topic. For specialised niche subjects, which are usually the ones students choose for final papers, literature can be very scarce, and 1994 would be fairly recent. For my specialised field the main study (which is still being cited frequently) is from 1870.
what’s wrong with this? 1994 is indeed the late 1900s, and it’s 31 years ago so depending on the topic they’re writing on, it could be immensely outdated
deleted by creator
sorry my bad
TIL I’m only 13. Hellz yeah, skibidi doo dah skibidi day or whatever the kids say now. I’ll ask my kid now that she’s older than me.
To answer the question: The professor assumes the email referred to 1900-1910 with “late 1900s”. As this was normal 20 years ago (and still gets used). He then gets upset realising the age difference between him and his student was likely the main contributor to this incorrect assumption.
To ask a question back: From https://www.bucknell.edu/fac-staff/john-penniman, I read:
I would say for religious studies it should be fine. But also for other areas, why can’t you use 1994 papers?
I assumed they might be working in certain fields of science where the most progress is very recent so old papers will be very incomplete and sometimes even wrong.
My field is particle physics and while a paper from 1994 wouldn’t be completely useless, I would need to check if recent papers still confirm the same results.
It depends on what field you’re studying. Some fields of study, like social studies, move very quickly. So it’s not uncommon for someone studying one of those subjects to exclude research that’s even 10 to 15 years old because things move so quickly.
A different subject, say hydrologic engineering has been studied for hundreds of years and doesn’t change very quickly. So a publication from 1994 could be just as valid today as it was then. Every topic is different and without more context the meme as is, is just meant to incite a reaction. Not to tell us about something that actually happened.
I study social study and frequently use papers that are referring to Karl Marx. Or feminist literature from the 70s. Or black literature from the 60s.
Yeah, I’d sooner say the situation is reverse, social studies would move slower and less “definitively” than natural sciences. I’m into linguistics and literature and for me it’s nothing unusual to use scholarship and materials all the way from the 19th century. Of course, when you’re working with old literature or old language, you need old materials too… To me it’s very interesting and important to know what Aristotle thought of Homer, while it’s perfectly irrelevant for a doctor to know what Galen thought of the humours or for a chemist what Newton thought of alchemy.
It’s the late 20th century, or the 1990s.
I’d take “late 1900s” as 1906-1910.
How would you refer to a time period between 1867 and 1892?
I’m the beginning of time …
The late 19th century?
fair enough
Very much depending on the topic. For specialised niche subjects, which are usually the ones students choose for final papers, literature can be very scarce, and 1994 would be fairly recent. For my specialised field the main study (which is still being cited frequently) is from 1870.
I was at school so it cannot… darn it