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.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
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!
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!
Friday, September 14, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
