Ramblings

Here's a good quotation from G.K. Chesterton, one, I think, is a propos for today: "Tolerance is a virtue of a man without conviction." Doesn't this fit today's media and self-anointed just perfectly? The only conviction these people have is in their own self-righteousness, as pointed out by Erick Erickson. They are here to save the world, whether we know it or not. And if we don't know it, well, they do.

Here I go, yesterday, lauding the day's newspaper for wonderful articles, letters-to-the-editor, even those I didn't necessarily agree with. They were, for the most part, thoughtful, reasoned, and insightful. They caused a reader to pause and consider. So, this AM's newspaper is filled with tripe. And a newspaper, a different one, from last weekend, I think, was even worse. I like some humor in columns and op-ed pieces, but too many of these were too cutesy, leading to an almost immediate dismissal of them as serious. And several showed an incredible lack of knowledge/familiarity with history, even distorting it. "The price of freedom is ever vigilance."

A new report came out giving low marks to a lot of highly-rated colleges for failure to teach "basics." There was an internet buzz about it and I saw an article earlier today, too. Apparently, Lamar U in Tex received an A and Harvard a D. And, from what I understand, Amherst didn't fare too well, either. Now, I understand that these rankings usually mean little, at least at face value. I have no doubt it's easier to get a quality education at Amherst than, say, Podunk U or, for that matter, at Harvard than Lamar. That's not to say a committed, motivated student can't excel and get a fine education anywhere--such a student can and often does. But.... This latest report downgrades some of the better colleges for not stressing "basics," whatever those are. I think it reflects on the number of composition courses, science and math requirements, etc. Well, I see two serious flaws in this. One, the Amhersts and Harvards accept students who already have the "basics" under their belts, as evidenced by their SAT/ACT scores. At AC, I was expected to know the "basics." I had a high school diploma, didn't I? And, if I didn't know them, there were books "on reserve" in the library for me to learn them, on my own time, not some "remedial" courses for which the colleges can charge extra. Two, OK, we had few required composition courses, maybe only one. But every course required writing and a lot of it! In high school, our term papers were 3-5 pages long--maybe one for an English class and one for a social studies class, maybe. I was stunned to find I had 3-page papers due in each class, every Monday!!!!! Wait, a term paper due every week???? Yep. I know a lot of people think I lie about this, that I just make it up. But those who've gone to other schools like this know I'm not. So much for "composition" courses and ratings. After getting my BA from Amherst, I attended three different grad schools. None required anywhere close, not even close, to the number of papers I had to write at AC. (And, I might add, none had the students I competed against at AC either. I'm not criticizing them; their work just wasn't of the same caliber. Of course, mine often wasn't, too....)

I'm reminded, with these rating things, of one for national high schools. It ranks schools as "outstanding," etc. based on the percentage of students who take the ACT and, I suppose, the achievement tests (or whatever they are called). Yes, you read that correctly, "the percentage of students who take." It's not how well they do, how high they score, either individually or collectively. If the students take it and do miserably, obviously not knowing the "basics?," it's still an "outstanding" school. How silly!

Speaking of quality college educations, are there really courses called, "Introduction to Television?" Of course there are. At one of the colleges where I teach, there's a "History of Rock and Roll." (Don't get me started!) My question is why? Is it because they are "relevant?" That's surely a requirement for teaching something, isn't it? No one can convince me that a young college kid has much of an idea of what is "relevant." I'm sure he/she has an idea of what's easy, fun, or cool, but not "relevant." I suppose one could make an argument about the influence of television or hippy rock music, but at the expense of not learninng the panorama of US History???? Sorry, I don't buy it. I suppose some might, though, but is there really a course called "Gynecology in the Ancient World?"

Out to read, although I should be writing.