But this isn’t about her, this is about the class and how information is presented. She could be a Nobel Laureate herself–it doesn’t matter if it’s not shared. Good teachers teach; great teachers inspire–that’s my standard. It is sloth to cut and paste questions from known accessible resources rather than come up with questions oneself that correlate what was discussed in lecture. This cheats students of objective grading based on test-time rationalization, because then a hard choice has to be made: memorize questions like everyone else to keep up with the grade curve, or stick to reading the books on principle and risk [certainly] falling behind.  If the playing field were level with original (at the very least, not PUBLIC) questions, this could happen.
You know nothing about my class attendance or whether or not I pay attention, so I’ll ignore that, but the point of going to class is not to be read to–it’s to have someone synthesize/ condense the material and give a perspective using THEIR words, DIFFERENT points of view, OTHER angles. Dra. G. did not do that. Dr. MS, menos. My main problem was with the course, and when you have a problem with the curriculum, you look to the department head. In this case, there is no surprise why the department is a sinking ship. It’s not personal, it’s business–MY business, as in my career, what I paid money for to learn.

But don’t worry–the rot that exists in the pathology department is simply a distant metastasis of the primary tumor that lies elsewhere, but there’s only so far I’ll go publicly. The point here isn’t to embarass, it’s to chronicle my experience. I don’t have to apologize for or justify that to anyone.