It's a brand new year, brand new semester and the first meeting of our school (which has, by the way, been "converted" to "faculty") and already we were required to start cracking our heads. The matter was this: the reason, "the student is weak", that many lecturers used to explain failures is no longer acceptable. The argument was that it is very obvious that a student is weak, if he had failed, so they need more than that. Yes, of course - some are lazy, some never turned up, some never did any work - but still, there are those who have failed solely because they are weak. So how are we to explain these if "weak" cannot be used? (We prefer never to use the word "stupid"). I have given it a thought...
2. Stunted intelligence
3. Microscopic Intelligence Quotient
4. Lacking talent in this academic field
5. Low brain-cell count
6. Inferior cognitive processes
7. Poor neuron coordination
That quite hurt my brain. I hope there aren't too many little prawns in my class this time... prawn brains don't learn easily!