Margaret Atwood: Letter to America

Let me start off by saying that this lady is not making America look bad, just our current president. She romanticizes about the good-ole-days when the nation watched Leave it to Beaver, and danced to Frank Sinatra. She goes off on this rant about how she danced to the Andrews sisters and listened to Jack Benny on the radio (565-566). Oh and we are such environmentalists, tree-hugging is our specialty because of course, we Americans always know what the world needs to be even better, we are the examples (566). This is my letter to Margaret Atwood.
Well listen lady, I am pretty sure you were preoccupied with your Ella Fitzgerald and your chocolate malt shakes to realize that we were fighting wars and social crisis all through these fantastic times. Were we not in World War II? We were not even going to aid in that war until the war came knocking at our door. We must be heroes because we won't bother with anyone else or help anyone else until we're bothered. We interred Japanese people, on the assumption that they were spies. We've involved ourselves in a pointless race against the Soviets, on all fronts, from space to fighting communism, because capitalism is key. We've fought in pointless wars before the one we're in right now, hello...Vietnam? So why do you, Ms Atwood, have to come around now complaining about our foreign policies. It's not like we were always some innocent bystander on the globe, we picked on people. I do not like this romantic idea you are trying to compare our current situation to. We jumped into another war, at the time we jumped in, it was favored amongst a huge majority of the country. We were scared and wanted to prove that we were still fierce. Well, just like any war, we as human beings get tired of the fighting and realize the problems tied along with them. But do not tell me that we have fallen off the moral wagon with this one war, this one invasion, because we fell off the wagon many years ago and have been trying to catch up with it ever since. You are nothing but an onlooker, you do not know how all of this affects us, and by reminding us about it with your comments about our Constitution being "gutted" (567), please do not put your two-cents into this, we have to deal with our mistakes ourselves without some other person complaining about us.

Response to Churchill: Crimes Against Humanity

Ward Churchill has nerve to offer some of the creative names for his fictional sports teams. I am referring to his Hanover "Honkies" and Galveston "Greasers" (538). I agree with Churchill that there is a problem of discrimination becoming fun and entertaining for the majority groups. Calling a team "Redskins" and doing hand motions like the "Tomahawk Chop," making the depiction that these Native American people are primitive and barbaric is not okay (536).
America goes through all of these phases in history where it fights for civil rights and equal perception of its people, hoping that foul and racist words will be eliminated from the American language, and then it goes off and does racist things again. How is having a red faced Native American with a big dopey smile on its face any different from making fun of African Americans with black face paint in minstrel shows. There is hardly any difference. It is appalling that Americans are getting a kick out of making fun of a group of people that were, by the way, here before their immigrant ancestors slaughtered and redistributed them around the country. If anything, we should be begging for forgiveness. But that's not how people work, we never admit our wrong doing. Instead, how about we do what Churchill suggested and start poking fun at every other minority, and even majority. It only makes it fair. Oh, but wait, that is no fun when the joke is on you.

Response to Maxine Kingston: No Name Woman

It is sad to think that in this old culture, image is everything. I do not mean physical appearance, I am talking about the facade that a person must portray to the world consisting of morals, values, etc. This poor woman was living alone, facing the fact that her husband may have left her, died, whatever the case, and she could not have any intimate contact and start a new life. She finally succumbed to temptation and had become pregnant out of her own marriage. The sad thing here is that her town found it just to vandalize her home and humiliate this woman for having a baby(391). This group of people that thought so highly of themselves decide that day not to take the high route. Instead, they frighten this poor woman into suicide.
The saddest part of this is, the mother in this story who is sharing the tale to her daughter is using this tragedy to portray a message. "Now that you have started to menstruate, what happened to her can happen to you. Don't humiliate us. You wouldn't like to be forgotten," (392-393). Using threats as a way to warn a girl about not getting pregnant too soon is, of course in my culture, the worst way to go about the situation. In this culture I'm assuming that threats of disowning are common and worried about. This story reminds me of "A Tale of Two Divorces," where women are afraid to act out of the social norms, and end up leading unhappy or tragic lives and endings.

Response to Roiphe: A Tale of Two Divorces

Being a child that had once been caught in the middle of a nasty divorce, I can relate to the stories that Anne Roiphe told about her mother's unhappy marriage and her own experience with a hopeless marriage. Roiphe shares that her mother was timid about divorcing, it was a black stain on her psyche. Roiphe's marriage was not a bed of roses either, and when realizing this, she did not stick around with her deadbeat husband the way that her mother had. I believe that in my mother's divorce she had experienced both feelings that these two women had. She had been brought up Catholic and thought that divorce was a sin, that a woman should try harder for a marriage to work. When she finally realized that her own husband was a deadbeat, she left him. But this was not easy for women before, the difference being that in the 50s women were becoming baby makers and men were bringing home the bacon.
It is hard for me to think about a time when women could not stand up for themselves and realize what is wrong with a relationship that they are in. I do not think it was necessarily that women were so subservient to their husbands as Roiphe led readers to believe. That her mother would make sure that her legs were waxed and her nails were painted, just so that her husband could find her attractive (205). This mother was a slave to her husband, nervous as hell, waiting for him to come home so that she could once again pretend that their marriage was happy and perfect (206). I think that the only reason women were like this was because unless they could keep the marriage from falling apart, they would be left alone and without anywhere to go. Women began going home and raising families again at this time, work was far from their brains in this culture. If Roiphe's mom could no longer fake the marriage, she would be unable to survive and raise her children in a "healthy" environment. Today, divorce is at its highest rate because people cannot stand dealing with disastrous marriages and opt out of them. This fantasy of love as oxygen (208) is over and people almost know that romantic love is the first type of love to flicker away. But now women are capable, even more so than men, to take care of themselves and their children.

Response to "Arranging a Marriage in India"

I am quite torn on Serena Nanda's article, I have never really thought too much about arranged marriages before. Growing up in "Western" society, of course the idea of such a matrimony is considered ridiculous and primitive. Although that thought was predisposed in my mind, after reading this article I am not so sure that I completely disagree with the arrangement of spouses considering the many promising aspects of it.
I learned today in my world literature class that the idea of Western society came about when Europeans began differentiating themselves from the cultural "other," which in their case would be those in Asia. "Eastern" society was exotic to them, customs and culture. When I read through this article I could see that the ideas of meeting a person and getting to know them before marriage greatly differed from having my mother decide that I will be marrying Joe Shmoe. But I thought about it, and I realized that in America, this idea of "romantic" love has its consequences. We have plenty of time in life to find a mate and get to know them, however, we choose to rush into relationships and base our futures on what we have encountered with our significant others in a matter of months or maybe a couple of years. This leaves room for many problems, both financially and emotionally.
Nanda's friend who was arranging her son's marriage was keen on finding a suitable match for her son, one that would not cause any problems to the family when it came to gossip, money, etc. She would not let her son marry a girl who came out of a family with too many girls (145) because that would be potential economic and social damage for the son's family. This reminds me of the story behind Pride and Prejudice, where it was not suitable for a wealthy man from a higher class to consider a marriage between a girl that was in practical destitution with a pack of five sisters at home. Let us not mention, that also in that story was the problem of the daughter Elizabeth being too out spoken and well learned for her own good, which brings us to another problem that tears me between liking and disliking arranged marriages.
The son was given another prospect with a woman who was very well educated and could hold her own in the outside world (145), which was a problem for the family because they did not want a girl who was too well educated. This distaste for an intelligent woman is oppressive in my opinion, because I have been a girl brought up to show off as much of my brain power as possible, never considering the feelings of the opposite sex. Giving the opinion on the mother's end, I can see that she does not want a girl to be too full of herself and not get along "harmoniously" (145) with the boy's family. I do believe that the behavior they wish for their son is shooting too high, no one person is perfect.
Reaching perfection in their son's marriage is an amiable goal, but it no two people are completely "perfect" for one another, and makes me think of Hitler and his hope for a perfect race and world. Perfection is a great thought, and of course we all wish that our lives were blessed with perfection, but to deny every girl her place in a son's life is rather excessive. Where one girl is too educated, the other is too loud, and another is too poor. This Nazi marriage is too much for me to fathom, however, I do remember my own mother saying that she wanted me to find a good guy to marry, and she'd hate the dude otherwise.
I also recognized that the references to the caste system was mentioned several times. I have been afflicted with my own version of the caste system in my own family. My family is against me marrying outside of the Catholic faith. In India, the Brahmins would not want someone marrying an Untouchable, it would be dirty and low. In any case, I do not understand this disgust towards lower castes of people, but I do see how it would be desirable for two people to be apart of the same caste in order to have less complications between not only themselves, but with the families involved.
As you can tell, I was all over the place in reading this article. I am still not quite sure I agree with arranged marriages, but I do like the idea of a worry-free matrimony. The ideals are all there, but there are glitches in the plans based on how Western society as brought me up. I must remember though, I am not in the East, so I do not know all of the good that can come from such an upbringing.

Response to "Shakespeare in the Bush"

At the end of my senior year in high school we had to read Hamlet, and of course, our teacher taught us the "interpretation that was universally obvious" (Bohannan 216). This story was absolutely hilarious. Never again will I view the play the same way again. It was funny for me to read because the way I learned it, Claudius was the person at fault for everyone's death at the end, but these chiefs and elders blamed Hamlet and Laertes for all of the turmoil that ensued. They validated Claudius' marriage to Gertrude, claiming that the "Europeans were more like [them]" (218), it was a rule for the dead man's brother to marry the grieving widow immediately. Of course the Europeans did not see this union as proper, and so that was a difference in the upbringing of these two communities. Customs are very different no matter where you travel, and if you expect everyone to act and understand the same things, you are obviously living in a bubble.
It was funny how the elders would interjected with their customs while Bohannan told the story. Saying things such as, "But he must have many wives! Who else can brew beer and prepare food for all of his guests?" (219), which left Bohannan confused and frustrated. Her irritation was caused because there was no "universal" custom, not everyone follows the same rules and ideals in every culture. That is what culture is, a way of life that sets one community of people apart from another. Of course, groups of people imitate one another's cultures and guidelines on living, but no two tribes of people are the same.
I found it quite interesting that when the elders of this tribe talked about the Europeans, although they would correct their interpretation of Hamlet, they still said something that struck me. An elder said that "people are the same everywhere" (225), which is a statement that you do not often hear. There are always people who are racist or believe that their customs are the only way, but this tribe recognizes cultural differences and still believes that ultimately everyone is the same. I found it refreshing to read that, it was the nicest line I have read all semester. For once it was a positive view on societal differences.

Shop Like a Man

The title of this article really should be "Learn to Shop Like a Woman." I am unclear as to what the message behind the article was. Underhill began by saying that men do not spend as much time shopping as women do, yet he also says that "as women's roles change, so do their shopping behaviors--they're becoming more like men in that regard," (187), so what is going on in this article? Are women too involved with shopping or are they becoming less involved in the experience? And what about men? Is their shopping habits, or lack thereof, desirable?
Underhill's ideas were a bit scattered. He would discuss a man's intuition to pay for everything at the check-out counter for a natural ego boost, but then would talk about how men are too quick to shop and not smart enough when choosing simple items such as groceries (189). His final decision would be based on flashy boxes and his children begging for whatever lunch snack they wanted.
Underhill shifts again to say that shopping is stressful for a wife when her husband is involved because he is not entertained enough. He suggests that stores such as Victoria's Secret, a lingerie store, should attempt to appeal to the opposite sex using tools such as a Sport's Illustrated section or a big screen that includes the lingerie fashion shows (192). Although the idea seems like a sure fire way to attract men into that shopping establishment, I think that Underhill should consider his other suggestion; it would be more appropriate for the owner to open the store next to a computer or sports equipment shop in order to keep the men occupied (192), no need to have a room of gawking men occupying the store where women measure their cup-sizes.
So, Underhill wants an integration of men and women in shopping in order to occupy both sexes in the shopping situation, or at least that is what i was getting out of the essay. This seems all fine and dandy, but is the title not "Shop Like a Man," and is this form of integration really teaching men to take their time shopping and women to not rush due to their man's inability to stay controlled in a clothing store? This is not shopping like a man, this is shopping like a woman, if Underhill's stereotypes are correct. Steady, controlled, and timely shopping falls under the generalization that women spend more time shopping than men do, as said in the beginning of the article (187). What is the point of Underhill's article then? Is it beneficial to shop the brief and careless way that men do, or do we begin a transition into steady and controlled shopping where we all check price tags and monitor our budget?
I feel as though I've written my own response to this essay as scattered as Underhill had written his observations.

Pipher is Full of It

I never had a chance to respond to Mary Pipher's Academic Selves, so I have decided to take this opportunity to say that her article is very outdated. I realize that the article was not written recently, but her views on how girls are frail and afraid of displaying their true intelligence is an old and dead idea.
She goes on to say that "boys are more likely to be praised for academics and intellectual work" (280), which used to be the case before the new millennium. She says that "girls are more likely to be praised for their clothing, behaving properly, and obeying rules" (280), and maybe in some cases that is true, but it is not the first expectation that we have for young girls anymore. Society is not expecting all boys to be aggressive, competitive, and genius, as well as girls to be dainty, frail and well mannered.
Sports have for many years been dominated by men, but now high schools and junior highs are getting praise for their women's teams, who are on top of their game in softball, soccer, volleyball, and golf. High Schools have actually allowed women to be on their football teams and wrestling teams with much discretion, however, these acts of competitiveness proves that women are not going to break if a ball hits them in the head.
Girls may have been perceived as math boneheads, especially in Pipher's article, "girls get anxious, which interferes with problem solving, and so they fail and are even more anxious and prone to self doubt the next time around," (280). This woman is lumping every girl into this group of failures. She tries to come off as someone who wants to help spread inspiration, that she feels for young girls and knows what they are going through. She expresses deep concern for the future of girls in education, but she is only representing herself as a woman who has suckered herself into all of these sexist beliefs. She is a sexist herself.
Maybe I am being to harsh, I don't remember the 90's, I was barely alive in the 80's, so these conflicts in education did not have a lasting effect on me, but if this woman had written this article present day, I would have wondered if she had been living in a box for twenty years.

What are Homosexuals For?

It was refreshing to read something that was not centered around education and reading an article about reading. It was becoming old. "What are Homosexuals For?" moved me. I had never really sat down and thought about how difficult it must be for a homosexual male or female to "come out" in a society that at one point completely rejected the sexuality.
Andrew Sullivan gives an example about a professor who lived a very dull life and never could announce his homosexuality to the public. His life was lived without joy, just a day to day cycle of repetitiveness that contained little human contact, and the contact he had was with other males in which he could not even pursue a relationship. Eventually this man became very open about his sexual preference and lived the best three years of his life before dying of cancer. His life was cut short, but the time he had been out and free to pursue the many relationships that he had once hoped for were fulfilled (381).
Sullivan continues on to talk about his own hardships that he experienced when struggling with his sexuality. He had known he was gay, but like most that are exposed to anti-gay messages, he tried to reject this part of his life for as long as possible. Like the university figure, he was left lonely and confused, but soon was able to announce his secret and begin the steady climb into acceptance among those that understood him and his feelings.
When I first moved to Long Beach a few years ago, I was aware that there was a significantly large gay community here, and so through the years it never phased me when I saw a gay or lesbian couple at a local shop or coffeehouse, whereas in my old town it was very rare. I never thought, however, that for these people and couples to be so comfortable and open there could possibly have been personal struggles and even periods of loneliness and confusion going on inside of their heads. Though society is beginning to settle their disapproval and become more accepting of this sexuality, there are still many more that are prejudice and discriminatory, and it is quite possible that these homosexuals have felt the brunt of these disapprovals.
Homosexuals are made up of the same eyeballs, skin, and organs that heterosexuals are made of, they just happen to feel attraction to the same sex. They also have different ways of expressing their love or friendships, some are more flamboyant and display their homosexuality more than others, and some may hold hands in the streets the same way that a heterosexual couple will hold hands. Because society has been so tough to deal with, those who can publicly display their sexuality are those that have dealt with the uphill battle of acceptance, and even if they haven't been accepted, so what? They are people too and they will fight for those rights that they deserve more than any other heterosexual bigot.
Homosexuals are not for anything. They are here for the same reasons that heterosexuals are here. They are here to be mother and father figures, they are here to be political figures, they are here to work for the rights that are being kept away from them. They are here to start the revolution. They are here to fight for the freedoms that they are said not to have, and they are here to walk and breathe and take up space the way any other heterosexual would. When a homosexual is "out of the closet" or whatever you want to call it, they could care less if you embrace them with open arms or shun them with a door to their face, but they do care when their rights are being revoked, because they are people too and deserve the opportunity to marry if they so choose and buy a coffee if they so choose without judgment or maltreatment.

Gannon's English 99: Literacy in Ruins

This article was not painful to read, unlike some of the others I've had to endure. It was so well written. The writer had a contemporary voice that I was able to relate with. When he talked about how he was going to dress for work, "I bought a herringbone jacket. I couldn't find one with those leather elbow patches. I tried Men's Wearhouse. The sales guy told me they didn't make them anymore.," (Gannon 215) it honestly made me visualize the stereotypical, balding professor I was excited to see in college. Though the subtle humor was scattered throughout all of the article, there was still room for this article to quite possibly be the most depressing I've read since the semester began.
He spoke of the three categorizes of students in his class, "bored girls, jocks, and refugees," the categorizations themselves were depressing. Such a lack of excitement in a room three times a week would make me crazy, I could only imagine how this creative magazine writer must of felt. He was actually looking forward to changing these kids lives in some way. Then he continued on to talk about the writing that these students were developing and it made me cringe.
The bored girls were not so bad. I often here gossip as exciting as their writings about boys, boredom, and slushies. The jocks writing was typical. How much could you expect out of the good old fashioned jock, who cares more about partying and drinking than actually showing up to school each day. What a drag showing up to class must have been for those guys. But those two lame tales lead up to the uncomfortable writing of the refugees, whose stories were underdeveloped, however, were still developed enough to create an unsettling feeling in the reader's stomach. I don't know how a teacher could possibly deal with such sick,twisted, and real stories like that of the refugees for an entire semester. Reading about a friend's hand being blown off was not exactly apart of the job description. I felt bad for Gannon. His article's pessimistic tone and sarcasm were not hidden in all of the descriptions he was trying to display.
Gannon seemed more and more distressed as the essay went on. He started the essay sort of fun and sarcastic, talking about his fantasy of a student winning the Nobel Prize and a movie being made out of the tale. A "Stand and Deliver" of the ages. But by giving examples of the writings, the pessimism for the fate of this class became evident. He passed and failed and did not have hope for any of the students he left because he just did not want to deal with them for another semester. It is so sad to think that a person has to feel that way.
I know the job of a teacher is to educate no matter what the obstacles, but teachers are people too, and environments such as the one of that English 99 could put a real toll on a teacher's psyche. I was pretty happy when the article ended with Gannon getting released from the school, it was the first sign of real peace throughout that whole article.

Response to "Football is a Sucker's Game" by Sokolove

What was the point of this article? I wasn't sure if Sokolove was writing negatively about college football or not. He would write about how U.S.F. Coach Leavitt wanted a football team and then went on about all that he has accomplished, but then suddenly switch the subject to how much the sport costs and how Leavitt was greedy. So what was the point? You're either happy that this commuter school now has a great team or you're not, make up your mind Mr. Sokolove.
I've made up my mind about this football craze. Although I do believe in having pride in the school you're attending, the pride should not be derived from sports, but rather academics. I would much rather leave my university satisfied that my education will serve me well in the world, than a good four years running around chasing a ball and not sure where my life will end up. How many of these football stars make it to the NFL? They are given full rides to these colleges based on their talent in the sport, but how often do these players actually get around to playing along side the big boys? Not often.
I don't find it right that so much money that could be used to better the academic experience at the university should be used to accommodate the needs of these brutes. Millions of dollars go into housing and keeping these men, some of which had G.P.A.s that were below acceptable for university admissions. I'm not given incentives to come to a university, why should these men? I'm not expecting a gigantic glittering building that will teach me about math or English. Instead, I'm paying $3,500 a year to attend in hopes that someday I will be able to use my brain, not my body to succeed. These men, although skilled at their trade, are practically prostitutes, they perform services of entertainment to raise money. That may be a little too harsh, but I'm a bit peeved about college football's funding. These boys are babied high schoolers that are being thrown into the ring of the university big-boys.
This brings me to the irresponsibility of these helmet wearing schmoes, who need a mandatory study time to do homework. This is not high school anymore, students do not walk through school with their teacher holding their hand. Many of these men are fathers, fathers to multiple children. Do they have someone setting up mandatory play time with their kids? If you're practicing 6 hours a day and still have homework to do for class, where will they find time for the multiple children they can't seem to stop conceiving. Where do these men find time to hold jobs to support their growing families. According to the article, the U.S.F. team had around 60 children that had been born either before or after the team members had been brought in. No one seemed to be thinking when they started handing out scholarships to the future fumblers of American football.
That scholarship money could have been used for something more than the university's trophy team. The scholarship that went to a football player with a low G.P.A. in high school could have been given to the girl or boy that was destined to find the cure for certain types of terminal cancer, or found a way to stop the multiplication of cells affected with AIDS. But no, these discoveries will be delayed because college football is priority, go team!

Response to Lynn Cheney's "Politics in the Schoolroom"

Even before the article begins, there is already warning as to the conservative undertones that make up Lynn Cheney's argument. Despite being moderate in the world of politics, I agree with much of what Cheney has presented.
I noticed this in high school, that the history lessons I was taught in elementary school were more positive and celebratory of once American "heroes." Christopher Columbus was an icon, he was the man who discovered America and opened the gates to colonization of this foreign and somewhat inhabited land. But once eleventh grade hit, Ole Chris was no longer such a great guy. He was considered a fool that landed in the wrong country and destroyed the land that we now call our home. The stories became distorted, and what I had once believed to be true in fifth grade became mixed up in high school. Who was I to believe? The textbooks were published by the same Houghten Mifflin, so what's the change for?
It is very true that these days, the all-American classroom is housing anti-American thoughts. These teachers may or may not realize that they have complete control over an 8 year old's tender brain, therefore they now have the opportunity to create an army of America-haters. They teach that all of the reform and -izations of the past are greedy and that we have torn up the land that once belonged to the natives. Oh boo hoo, is what I say to that.
Does no one realize that yes, we are living here. We have it pretty good here in the old U.S. of A., so why is it taught to hate all of the progress we've made. Sure we've had some wars, some were justified like the Civil War (hey, just because the South housed slaves doesn't mean that the North wanted it. Who won? The North, people!), World War II (Granted if we hadn't been affected we probably wouldn't have jumped in. Why get mixed up in the problem?), but then we have also had our follies like Vietnam. Whatever, the point is that every country makes mistakes, so why put such a negative light on America and feel so sorry for those who have at once wronged us. Japan for instance. Cheney brings up Hiroshima. Why do you think America bombed them? To get back at them for Pearl Harbor. An eye for an eye man, that's how it should be.
At some point in the essay, Cheney begins to ramble on about Feminists and the role of a woman shouldn't just be in the kitchen. I'm a woman, I agree. Hey I wouldn't be in college voicing my opinion on this blog if it weren't for all those women getting fed up with the male dominated school system and finally doing something to oppose it. Unfortunately women are still oppressed today with dirty comments made to them by the males that surround them in society. Whether the comment be a jab at their role in the world, the lower pay in the workplace, or just flat out sexual connotation, men have tried very hard to put women down. I don't know if it's because their egos and testosterone have flooded their brains and have kept them from thinking clearly, but to this day even I as a woman in college am hearing the same old bull that boys joked about in high school. I'm sure the train of thought that men are better than women has been stifled, for the most part, but Cheney brings up the fact that to this day there is still some of that old fashioned oppression still circulating today.

Course Reading for 9/10/07

If I had read "The Idea of a University" or "The Case Against College" before I had answered the prompt on Friday, I may have had a better response. Apparently, a university education is not going to generate geniuses and revolutionaries, nor will it prove to be a proper place to begin every American's future. Growing up, all I have ever heard from my elders was that the only way I will ever be considered "smart" or have a slight chance at a promising career would be to go to college. I have heard from these same elders that unless one attains an education in college, they will probably live on welfare and work at a local fast-food establishment.
In Newman's "Idea of a University," he makes it known that the reason for a university is not to birth some of the most brilliant of people, it is not a factory that generates Einsteins every four years. According to Newman, the reason behind a University education is to expose its attendees to many different subjects in hopes that each person will become more understanding and knowledgeable of all of these subjects, and hopefully discovering his own niche in the process. I had never really thought of attending a university for that reason, I applied because it seemed like the thing to do.
University isn't for everyone, as told by Lee in "The Case Against College." She writes about how America is obsessed with college, which I happen to agree with, and shares her personal story about her son who was just not cut out to attend university. She shares the triumphant stories about drop-outs like Bill Gates, and expresses a message to her reader that it is okay to question whether or not he or she is really meant to attend college. Many of the people I graduated with did not believe that going straight to a four year university would be the best for them, but the stigma surrounding them because they were not going to college was suffocating them. Some enrolled in city college for this reason. Others are giving excuses that they are going to work for a semester and then eventually enroll. I kind of read that as buying time until these outlying forces accept that these people were not born and raised to be shoved into this educational institution.
I personally feel that I will benefit out of a university education. I do not think that by attending I will be the one who finds the cure for cancer, nor do I feel such an extreme pressure to attend that it is almost discouraging. I want to go because I feel it fits me. This is my second week, however, so I won't get too hasty.