So the "Socratic Method" has been bothering me. In numerous interviews this is mentioned, and while certainly some technique of questioning and interaction with students is far more superior and admirable than the technique of high-powered presentation of theory, procedures, and on occasion examples followed by "practice," it is not clear that our poor applicants--some of whom have the bloody gall to explain said method to me--know what they're getting into. My point does not, however, rest upon the idea that the term "Socratic Method" has some fixed historical meaning which is tied to the practices of either the historical or the literary Socrates. But I think it is helpful to consider how Socratic arm-twisting can lead to such absurd claims as the a priority of knowledge in the Meno, in which he, funnily enough, demonstrates to his interlocutor that mathematical knowledge is a priori even slaveboys (so too their bondage). This foundation is shakier still when you consider the ethical and moral tenor and implications of his theses beyond the somewhat more plausible mathematical claims. And so my point is that a Socratic method is still teacher-centered and arm-twisty, while susceptible to the attack that it ludicrously expects students to already have knowledge of empirical facts. It will be recalled that Socrates' interlocutors (slaveboys aside) tended to be older men of some worldly experience and even waning libido. It's hard to see how we can use this as a firm basis for the education of our youth. But then again, the Greeks are supposed to teach us about democracy, so who knows?