• stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    13 days ago

    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is indeed the late 1900s, and it’s 31 years ago so depending on the topic they’re writing on, it could be immensely outdated

    • LarsIsCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      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:

      John Penniman is Associate Professor and chair of Religious Studies

      I would say for religious studies it should be fine. But also for other areas, why can’t you use 1994 papers?

      • InputZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        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.

    • quack@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      There is nothing wrong with it other than it makes me feel ancient and I don’t like it.