THE RIGHT ANGLE: Getting more for your money - Opinions
I'm a big girl. I can admit when I'm wrong - fortunately, now is not one of those times. No, this time I'm merely not 100% right. Let me explain: a week ago, I set out to prove that students who are paying their own way through college are more likely to want challenging classes than those whose parents were footing the bill. That theory was wrong. However, in realizing the flaws in my original theory, I eventually came to an even better conclusion.
Let me start at the beginning. In Spring 2005, I took an economics course. As a political science major, this course wasn't required, but I figured it would be applicable. Several people had joked that after taking an economics course I would quickly change my political affiliation. Eager to be a sheep like everyone else, I was excited at the prospect of joining the Democratic Party upon my completion of the course.
I never got that chance. In May, I left that class knowing just as much about economics as I had in January. Simply put, I was cheated out of an economics education by a teacher who just didn't care.
Had I realized how lax the professor was during the first week of school, I would have changed courses immediately. I never had a chance: that first Tuesday class lasted fifteen minutes and the professor was sick that Thursday.
As the semester wore on, I began to realize that I was learning very little, and it had nothing to do with me being a poor student. This professor spent a good 20-30 minutes a day talking about his personal life. I'll never forget the day he saw me putting on my iPod after class and remarked, "Hey, I hope you weren't listening to that during class." I smiled politely, but I really wanted to tell him that it probably wouldn't have made a difference.
Sometime last April, I ran into a girl who recognized me from that class. I lamented to her that I felt we had the worst professor in the department. She replied with a puzzled look and told me that she thought he was great because he was "so much fun in class."
Obviously, the same traits that caused me to despise this man are what made this fellow student love him. The only way I could rationalize this was by assuming that she was not paying for her own college tuition and therefore did not care that she was sacrificing her education for a "fun" teacher.
This led to my aforementioned theory. In order to test this theory, I signed on to the UNCG LiveJournal community and asked for volunteers. Technology is a beautiful thing, and within days I had dozens of students willing to take my survey. I asked several random questions, including a hypothetical situation involving a lenient and a hard professor, how they were paying for college, what (if anything) their parents were helping them pay for, and, just for good measure, how they leaned politically in regards to fiscal matters.
I surveyed several random volunteers, including my own suitemates (my own captive audience), making sure to get a good mixture of different types of students. The outcome was a disaster. There was absolutely no truth to my theory. Instead, half of all paying students chose the lenient professor, and half of all students living on their parents' dime also chose the lenient professor. So I was wrong. And even the one fraternity member that I was able to convince to take the survey crushed my theory that only rich kids "go Greek."
At second glance, however, I was able to find an interesting connection. With very few exceptions, the students who had chosen the harder professor leaned Republican when it came to fiscal matters, and vice versa. This gives all new meaning to my favorite bumper sticker: "Annoy a liberal, work hard and be happy."
Although it's not what I wanted to prove, it worked. Furthermore, upon asking why certain students chose the harder professor, I was relieved to receive answers such as "I want to be prepared for harder classes and graduate school," and "I don't expect to be spoon fed my entire life." These kids don't realize it, but they just renewed my faith in humankind.
As for the professor, the best I could do was to give him a bad evaluation. And as I recall, I wrote the equivalent of a short novel on his evaluation form. It obviously didn't help too much of anything - he's still teaching in the economics department. Meanwhile, I guess I'll never get those three course hours of my life back.
Showing posts with label professors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label professors. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
What Rights?: Apparently, the Right to Private Property Doesn't Exist. But What Rights Really Do?
What Rights? - Opinions
I met an interesting man last week at the restaurant where I work. Of course, when you spend your summer waitressing in a small Southern town, there is no limit to the "interesting" people you might meet. But this man was interesting in a "breath of fresh air" kind of way.
He was in his 40s or 50s, sitting alone, and seemed very eager to talk. Being such a slow day, I decided to stop and chat with him for a while. As it turns out, he's a history professor from Georgia who was just coming through town on business. Upon finding out I was a political science major, the topic naturally turned to politics. I was somewhat relieved to learn that this random history professor was a Republican, since liberals tend to be bad tippers.
He seemed just as relieved to find that there were indeed conservative college students such as myself at public universities. I told him about the trouble I've had with certain professors who don't appreciate my alternative stance on some classroom discussions. He said it was something that he had seen many times before. "Some people confuse their 'rights' with things that really aren't their rights at all. Many professors think they have the right to curtail their students' freedom of speech. But that's completely wrong. You have the right to say whatever you want in that classroom. They do not have the right to infringe upon your rights." He then went on to preach about how political correctness has spawned a whole new generation of people who claim their "rights" are being restricted, when really those rights never even existed.
He told me it was something I should do a column on, and I politely told him I might. Then, a strange thing happened. Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments ultimately have the power to seize property from individuals for private land development that may prompt economic growth. And as I'm sitting here, wondering whatever happened to property rights, I'm taken back to the conversation with the Georgia professor. Do we really have a right to property? Or is it just something we made up because we thought we lived in the land of the free?
This fight isn't anything new. Decades ago, my great-grandparents were forced to give up their farm in Wayne County, NC, for the construction of a new four-lane highway that was supposed to go right through the farm. The highway was never built. To this day, that farmhouse still stands there, and has even been re-inhabited. My great-grandparents gave up everything they had worked so hard to acquire for a highway that would never even exist.
But the fact that this has been going on for years now doesn't make it any less shocking. The Supreme Court has actually come out and said that mall contractors have more right to land than the people who have been living there their entire lives. Hello Wal-Mart, goodbye property rights.
Another federal decision this week made me stop and listen in awe. Congress is well on its way to passing an amendment that would outlaw flag burning. Now, this is not something that I'm worried about for personal reasons. I could not fathom ever wanting to burn an American flag, and I will admit that it makes me sick to my stomach when I see people doing such a thing. The irony of such an act has always confused me: you protest our government by burning a flag, yet you have the freedom to protest by burning a flag. It is my guess that most flag-burners have taken that freedom for granted. But regardless of how I feel about it, I don't think I have the right to say what a person can or cannot do with their own flag.
By passing a constitutional amendment that bans flag-burning, we are taking away one's right to express themselves and placing restrictions on it. Today, you can't burn the American flag. What's next? No open criticism of the government whatsoever? Limited freedom of press? Who knows, maybe within a few years this column will be outlawed for daring to question the government's decision.
I've always been so proud of my rights as an American. I love having a political argument with someone and being able to remind them that they should consider themselves lucky to live in a nation that allows them to speak out against a president they hate. But when the Supreme Court chooses Big Business over individual rights and Congress slowly begins to restrict how we are able to express ourselves, I have to be concerned. Now is the time to enjoy your freedoms and your rights - while you still have them.
I met an interesting man last week at the restaurant where I work. Of course, when you spend your summer waitressing in a small Southern town, there is no limit to the "interesting" people you might meet. But this man was interesting in a "breath of fresh air" kind of way.
He was in his 40s or 50s, sitting alone, and seemed very eager to talk. Being such a slow day, I decided to stop and chat with him for a while. As it turns out, he's a history professor from Georgia who was just coming through town on business. Upon finding out I was a political science major, the topic naturally turned to politics. I was somewhat relieved to learn that this random history professor was a Republican, since liberals tend to be bad tippers.
He seemed just as relieved to find that there were indeed conservative college students such as myself at public universities. I told him about the trouble I've had with certain professors who don't appreciate my alternative stance on some classroom discussions. He said it was something that he had seen many times before. "Some people confuse their 'rights' with things that really aren't their rights at all. Many professors think they have the right to curtail their students' freedom of speech. But that's completely wrong. You have the right to say whatever you want in that classroom. They do not have the right to infringe upon your rights." He then went on to preach about how political correctness has spawned a whole new generation of people who claim their "rights" are being restricted, when really those rights never even existed.
He told me it was something I should do a column on, and I politely told him I might. Then, a strange thing happened. Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments ultimately have the power to seize property from individuals for private land development that may prompt economic growth. And as I'm sitting here, wondering whatever happened to property rights, I'm taken back to the conversation with the Georgia professor. Do we really have a right to property? Or is it just something we made up because we thought we lived in the land of the free?
This fight isn't anything new. Decades ago, my great-grandparents were forced to give up their farm in Wayne County, NC, for the construction of a new four-lane highway that was supposed to go right through the farm. The highway was never built. To this day, that farmhouse still stands there, and has even been re-inhabited. My great-grandparents gave up everything they had worked so hard to acquire for a highway that would never even exist.
But the fact that this has been going on for years now doesn't make it any less shocking. The Supreme Court has actually come out and said that mall contractors have more right to land than the people who have been living there their entire lives. Hello Wal-Mart, goodbye property rights.
Another federal decision this week made me stop and listen in awe. Congress is well on its way to passing an amendment that would outlaw flag burning. Now, this is not something that I'm worried about for personal reasons. I could not fathom ever wanting to burn an American flag, and I will admit that it makes me sick to my stomach when I see people doing such a thing. The irony of such an act has always confused me: you protest our government by burning a flag, yet you have the freedom to protest by burning a flag. It is my guess that most flag-burners have taken that freedom for granted. But regardless of how I feel about it, I don't think I have the right to say what a person can or cannot do with their own flag.
By passing a constitutional amendment that bans flag-burning, we are taking away one's right to express themselves and placing restrictions on it. Today, you can't burn the American flag. What's next? No open criticism of the government whatsoever? Limited freedom of press? Who knows, maybe within a few years this column will be outlawed for daring to question the government's decision.
I've always been so proud of my rights as an American. I love having a political argument with someone and being able to remind them that they should consider themselves lucky to live in a nation that allows them to speak out against a president they hate. But when the Supreme Court chooses Big Business over individual rights and Congress slowly begins to restrict how we are able to express ourselves, I have to be concerned. Now is the time to enjoy your freedoms and your rights - while you still have them.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
The New First Amendment: Freedom of All Religions -- Except Christianity
THE RIGHT ANGLE: The New First Amendment - Opinions
Sometime last summer, as I was wasting away my life in front of a computer, I came across a rather humorous political cartoon drawn by Mike Luckovich. It showed an image of the Constitution with the words "Except for Homos - G.W.B" scrawled across it in what looked to be black crayon. I'll admit, it was funny and I laughed. But looking back on that cartoon, I'm starting to get a similar picture, only this time it's the Bill of Rights and "Except for Christians" is neatly penciled in next to the First Amendment.
Recently, a fellow UNCG student stopped me on campus and told me about a rather unconventional lecture they had endured in their Anthropology course. It seems that while this professor was teaching them about the Yanomamo culture in South America, they had taken it upon themselves to preach to the class about the evils of America and Christianity. The lecture included a discussion on how missionaries had traveled to the Yanomamo tribe in the mid to late 1900's and brought with them what proved to be fatal diseases including malaria, influenza, and even the common cold. This is, of course, historical fact, and no one should be offended by it. What bothers me, however, is that this teacher then ranted for 45 minutes on why they felt the missionaries were out of line in even traveling to South America in order to spread the Gospel.
According to this student, the professor spent a good majority of the class time talking about how the missionaries had no right to try to force their culture on the Yanomamo. They went on about how the missionaries taught the group to speak English, again stressing that the infiltration of this group by Western culture is an abomination. What the professor failed to even acknowledge is that the missionaries visited the group with only the best of intentions. These are people who believe so strongly in their religion that they would risk their lives to make sure people all over the world have a chance to hear their story, and yet, to hear this professor speak, you would think they travel around the world with the sole intention of killing off as many people as possible.
The missionaries did not teach the Yanomamo tribe English in order to destroy their culture; they did it so they could better preach Christianity to them. I find it appalling that a professor, or anyone for that matter, could actually criticize missionaries for simply trying to do what they believe is right. As a matter of fact, missionaries are probably some of the most selfless people in the world. They are actually more concerned with trying to give others a chance to hear about their religion than anything else.
Of course, not content with simply putting down Christianity, this Anthropology professor took it one step further: they likened the entire fiasco to the war in Iraq. This professor commented that they believed Bush going to Iraq to spread democracy was a cover, and that he was really in Iraq in order to spread Christianity. Of course, this is ridiculous, but then again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how asinine that opinion is. What they are NOT entitled to is the right to teach it to a class as if it were fact rather than a viewpoint.
Christian views are simply not welcome in the classroom, and I've known that ever since a teacher in high school informed us that she was not allowed to tell us that she believed in God. But actually attacking Christianity and its followers is going a step too far. It's one thing for a professor to bash the man that a majority of the country voted for in November, but it's a completely different thing to attack an entire religious group. I wonder how the university system would react if a professor bashed Buddhism or Hinduism as part of his lecture.
Perhaps someone needs to send this professor a copy of the Bill of Rights and tell them that if they wanted to go around preaching their opinions, maybe they should have become a missionary rather than a professor at a state-supported university.
Sometime last summer, as I was wasting away my life in front of a computer, I came across a rather humorous political cartoon drawn by Mike Luckovich. It showed an image of the Constitution with the words "Except for Homos - G.W.B" scrawled across it in what looked to be black crayon. I'll admit, it was funny and I laughed. But looking back on that cartoon, I'm starting to get a similar picture, only this time it's the Bill of Rights and "Except for Christians" is neatly penciled in next to the First Amendment.
Recently, a fellow UNCG student stopped me on campus and told me about a rather unconventional lecture they had endured in their Anthropology course. It seems that while this professor was teaching them about the Yanomamo culture in South America, they had taken it upon themselves to preach to the class about the evils of America and Christianity. The lecture included a discussion on how missionaries had traveled to the Yanomamo tribe in the mid to late 1900's and brought with them what proved to be fatal diseases including malaria, influenza, and even the common cold. This is, of course, historical fact, and no one should be offended by it. What bothers me, however, is that this teacher then ranted for 45 minutes on why they felt the missionaries were out of line in even traveling to South America in order to spread the Gospel.
According to this student, the professor spent a good majority of the class time talking about how the missionaries had no right to try to force their culture on the Yanomamo. They went on about how the missionaries taught the group to speak English, again stressing that the infiltration of this group by Western culture is an abomination. What the professor failed to even acknowledge is that the missionaries visited the group with only the best of intentions. These are people who believe so strongly in their religion that they would risk their lives to make sure people all over the world have a chance to hear their story, and yet, to hear this professor speak, you would think they travel around the world with the sole intention of killing off as many people as possible.
The missionaries did not teach the Yanomamo tribe English in order to destroy their culture; they did it so they could better preach Christianity to them. I find it appalling that a professor, or anyone for that matter, could actually criticize missionaries for simply trying to do what they believe is right. As a matter of fact, missionaries are probably some of the most selfless people in the world. They are actually more concerned with trying to give others a chance to hear about their religion than anything else.
Of course, not content with simply putting down Christianity, this Anthropology professor took it one step further: they likened the entire fiasco to the war in Iraq. This professor commented that they believed Bush going to Iraq to spread democracy was a cover, and that he was really in Iraq in order to spread Christianity. Of course, this is ridiculous, but then again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how asinine that opinion is. What they are NOT entitled to is the right to teach it to a class as if it were fact rather than a viewpoint.
Christian views are simply not welcome in the classroom, and I've known that ever since a teacher in high school informed us that she was not allowed to tell us that she believed in God. But actually attacking Christianity and its followers is going a step too far. It's one thing for a professor to bash the man that a majority of the country voted for in November, but it's a completely different thing to attack an entire religious group. I wonder how the university system would react if a professor bashed Buddhism or Hinduism as part of his lecture.
Perhaps someone needs to send this professor a copy of the Bill of Rights and tell them that if they wanted to go around preaching their opinions, maybe they should have become a missionary rather than a professor at a state-supported university.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
