February 2010 Archives
Maybe you've seen this newsweek article that highlights the disparity between admissions of minority students and graduation rates. http://www.newsweek.com/id/233843
Unfortunately, UNI is directly mentioned "At less-selective state schools, the numbers get worse. During the same time frame (2007), the University of Northern Iowa graduated 67 percent of its white students, but only 39 percent of its blacks."
In my personal opinion, this kind of damaging, national news media needs a swift response by administration to the university community, expressing concern, outrage, explanation, renewed effort, something, anything...
Tension on campuses is increasing (http://www.psychologicalscience.com/stereotyping_prejudice_discrimination/2010/02/racial-tension-on-college-campuses.html) with serious racial incidents at UCSD, arrests at UCI for protesting what is going on at UCSD, violent riots at UCB over tuition hikes.
California might get the fashion trends first, but they trend first in other ways as well...I think we are going to see a lot of unrest on college campuses nationwide, even in polite Iowa.
I'm in no way advocating violent protest. But I am advocating awareness and civic engagement. Going about one's business when campus violence (shootings, racial incidents, and rape) is on the increase nationwide, while tuition increases and programs and services are cut, is in itself an outrage.
UNI has seen an increase in racially-motivated incidents this year with little public attention, scrutiny, or awareness. Sure, eventually, a lot of people heard about these incidents and there has been administrative action. However, I sense little actual concern from the student body and community. More of a shrug, and 'that's too bad.' That kind of complacency can only lead to trouble.
Yes. I am one of *those* people. I can't read anything without editing it. I know the difference between "effect" and "affect" and it makes me crazy to see grammatical or spelling errors in print or on signage. See below, a sign in the Dublin Zoo in Ireland.
Language can be artful, and I get a certain peace when I read writing that flows and is technically correct. I so appreciate writing that elevates even above that into something truly creative. Knowing the parts of speech and the 'rules of the road' make writing easier. Knowing and fixing the mechanics of a piece of writing allows the ideas to shine through.
If you understand parts of speech, you can find a distinct pleasure in diagramming a sentence. Here are a couple of great websites on this "old school" skill:
And here is a quite beautiful diagram:
That said, I know from experience that writing skills can be taught. I was in my mid-20's before I stopped using "that" when I should have been using "who." It was only through the brute force of probably dozens and dozens of corrections by a mentor that I broke that habit. And just because I know grammar and spelling, doesn't mean I always practice what I preach. Point in fact, it is taking everything I have (and many backspaces) to write in upper and lower case letters in this post, with periods and commas. I much prefer all lower case and lots of dot dot dots....
Here are a few common errors I see in writing from people who have a lot to say, but are still learning how to write it.
Who vs. That
Who refers to people, that refers to objects
"The woman that dropped her purse" should be "The woman who dropped her purse."
Affect vs. Effect
Affect (emphasis on the A) has to do with emotional expression and is a noun, affect (emphasis on ffect) is a verb, and effect is a noun.
Their They're There
Their is possessive ("Their house"), they're is a contraction ("They're going to church") and there is location ("over there")
And here is a blog where all things grammar reign: http://www.grammarphobia.com/
And some thoughts on the Common Core
president ben allen has charged the strategic planning committee to 'be bold' in its vision and implemenation of that vision for uni. here are some thoughts that have been going around my mind recently, and especially, since i attended one of the town hall meetings yesterday re: the strategic plan. my examples will specify the psychology dept, because that is what i know, but i believe these ideas are not specific to the psychology department.
the psychology department (and others that have an "intro to x" course in the lac) could have a majors-only intro course of reasonable size (25-35 instead of 200-220). if an incoming freshman knows from the get-go that they want to be a psych major, they apply to the program right away (and those that meet a minimum gpa requirement gain entry). they start right away on our classes, with our majors-only intro course and progress through our courses...except for this small intro class nothing structural really changes. our courses are already tightly organized around prerequisites, and our students who are here for 4 years do this anyway...take a couple psych classes their freshman year and then progress through the rest of the courses. the difference being, they feel a part of the major right away, instead of when they are a sophomore or a junior which is when they currently apply to the major. the current structure actually encourages people to go to hawkeye first. this late-joining to the major has several negative consequences: they don't feel part of our dept until way later which leads to a disconnect while they're here and little or not contact with our alums later; they feel urgency by the time they join the major so they just want to rush on through; and this urgency contributes to their negative impression of the lac which has "wasted" their time their first two years when they could have been working on their major. the fact is, they are working on their major but we don't formally acknowledge them and bring them into the fold until too late.
pros: this creates community between students and their major faculty; this creates value for the 4 year experience--they get the impression that they can start their major right away; this greatly lessens the attractiveness of hawkeye--why go to hawkeye when you can start right away? and many more unintended positive consequences that come out of that greater sense of connection with the dept.
but what about those who don't declare right away? what about intro to psych as part of the lac? what about the lac as a whole? i envision a school of liberal arts and sciences (or some cool name that someone comes up with)..this could be stand alone if possible, or under the new college of arts and sciences (yes, social sci people would be concerned, but place a social science person as director or head or however that works, and poof a lot of that goes away--plus, the structure of this school will alleviate these concerns as you'll see i think). being a school means that it is a unit with its own faculty and curriculum. what is that curriculum? the utterly new, completely revamped "core" of courses that all students take at uni, spread across the 4 years as an integrated liberal arts and sciences experience. everyone upon acceptance at uni, is accepted to this school. upon graduation, everyone ultimately has the equivalent of a double major (liberal arts and sciences and then say, psychology). this curriculum is decided by the university as a whole..now it's not a matter of turf because these classes aren't being taught as a course from a specific department, depts don't feel like they are 'servicing' something, they don't feel like their resources are being sucked up by the lac and under appreciated because people (students and faculty) hate those classes anyway...now they might be concerned that they lose advertising for their major, but too bad--they'll have to be a bit more creative and proactive in attracting students :) and the benefits of majors-only intro to x classes is very appealing to departments, makes those classes fun and important again for them, and they still will be able to attract majors from the liberal arts and sciences curriculum because very likely there are courses and content that relate to their major. so back to the curriculum....through a large carefully chosen committee (akin to the strategic planning committee, but more heavily faculty and of course relying on the efforts and skills of existing people already serving on a variety of lac-related committees), town hall meetings, etc...the university decides "what is it we want students to know" "what are the course skills and outcomes we want them to have?" and we develop courses that do that....we don't beg, borrow and steal them from depts. the school creates the curriculum. now you have a 4 year experience that is thoughtful, mindful, purposeful...it runs like any other unit..there are entry level courses (first year experience could be housed with the school)...freshman first semester likely would be all liberal arts and sciences courses (writing, critical analysis development, democracy project-esque stuff, etc)...then their second semester they could branch out if they were ready (like the student who knows they want to be a psych major they could go and apply to the psych dept and take the majors only intro class spring semester)...their courses in this liberal arts and sciences school would progress like any other dept...they take their entry level classes, and then there are others after that...the students are guided through the program just like they are now in majors--through preqrequisites. by the time of their 4th year in the school they are taking senior seminars, capstone, portfolio courses, whatever...very cool stuff...their experience with *this* kind of core is purposeful, meaningful, throughout their entire experience. it doesn't feel like an obstacle to majors, it's part of their whole education at uni. (an added benefit is that it completely undercuts community colleges--we create value again for the 4 year university experience and foster cooperative arrangements with community colleges for people transferring into this new system, but we take away the leverage that community colleges rightfully have now: "why go to UNI when you can go to hawkeye and it all works out the same in the end?")
so if these school's courses aren't the existing courses from depts, who the heck is teaching them?! the school should be populated with faculty by application and invitation, and later, resources permitting, external hires. the school in this way acts as any other unit with their own invested faculty teaching their own courses. who do you extend invitations to? faculty who have won teaching awards (i'm sure you can see the public relations/advertising benefits--"award winning faculty" etc), those teachers who have already indicated by willingness and desire to teach in the current lac (if they're any good, you invite them)..and then you invite applications more generally. what you DON'T want the school to be is to be populated by volunteers who love the idea and want to see it work and they stay in their own dept and stretch themselves to 'help' the new school...this won't work...it's why a lot of interdisciplinary programs don't work...in the end, faculty have to turn their attention to their home dept...but what if the school of liberal arts and sciences were their home? now you might wonder who would apply, or why an award winning teacher would want to leave their department to come to the school? possibly the whole concept of a liberal arts and sciences education resonates with them, and they want to be a part of it; they want a new challenge, they're bored, been there done that in their dept and want to move on..on but now out of uni (more on that later)...could you get enough people to start the school with the requisite skills and background from a variety of disciplines. i think you could. i really do....let me digress for a moment and say that the rigidity of the department is part of a lot of problems...it leads to turf wars, it lowers creativity, it kills prospects for true collaboration across disciplines. imagine a place where there was more permeability between units. where i as a faculty member am truly considered an employee of UNI and not tethered to a department...where i as a faculty member can become excited about a new initiative or collaboration or unit or school on campus and can apply for it...and move there, where i will be evaluated over there, where my resources (since now they aren't so tightly considered dept resources, they are uni resources) can travel with me..because after all i'm a uni employee..and if i, and the person making the hiring/appointment decisions thinks that i serve uni best in this new capacity, so be it. the school's courses are now their own, determined by university core values, and campus discussion of what those courses could be, subject to the curriculum cycle for revision and continued growth and development and taught by a devoted faculty--devoted, because it's their dept, they teach them well, they've been chosen. and everyone likes to feel chosen. so what about scholarship/research/creative activity? well now you have a group of faculty, who are very likely research active (as most excellent faculty are), and what are they going to be doing? they are going to be doing research with people from other departments. they are not bound to their old home dept, though certainly, they'll have a good source of colleagues there..but now the world is their oyster, they can establish research collaborations with anyone from any dept...you get that kind of thing going, and i can nearly guarantee you others (who are in their own regular home depts) will follow. *that's* interdisciplinary. i find so many benefits to this model, that i won't list them here as i've tried to at least hint to them in this paragraph. but i will make one more explicit: we lose excellent faculty all the time because they become disenfranchised, often not from uni as a whole, but from their department. what is their only choice? try an admin route that will allow for partial and sometimes total escape from their department, but more likely--they leave. they leave uni and take their skills and energy and all the resources we've put into them, with them. poof. gone. in large businesses this would be an insane prospect. you lose an excellent, creative employee because they don't like their unit?? no, you move them! microsoft for example has a system of working groups. and you apply to join the groups, and you can leave your group and apply to others...and people aren't moving around willy nilly, there are usually terms associated with the appointment (by time, or project completion)..but you can constantly grow as an employee. there is no such thing as dead wood and burning out...because you can move around, learn, grown. so why can't we do that here? why can't i say, 'my research interests have changed a lot since i arrived here 9, 15, 25 years ago, and i feel like i might be a much better fit in xyz dept or school' ? why can't that person do that? why must they give up, succumb, become bitter and bored, OR, leave the university altogether. and of course, some people can't leave for a variety of reasons, so by virtue of the system we have (which granted is pretty typical for universities) you end up with deadwood. those truly are the choices WE as a university have created as options for our faculty. at worst, bitter and bored and disengaged; at best--lost opportunity for faculty to develop and grown be more engaged, serve their departments (wherever those may be) well and happily.
now are there details, downsides, politics and logistics that i'm simply glossing over for the sake of utter persuasive intent? you bet. but if you want to go bold, you gotta behave boldly.
La Bella Rosa Bakery - Santa Barbara, CA
Cajun Kitchen - Santa Barbara, CA
Joe's Cafe- Santa Barbara, CA
Harry's Plaza- Santa Barbara, CA
Santa Barbara Shellfish Company, SB, CA
Santa Cruz Market, SB, CA
Rusty's Pizza - Santa Barbara, CA
Giovanni's Pizza - Santa Barbara, CA
Taqueria El Buen Gusto -Santa Barbara, CA
La Tapatia - Santa Barbara, CA
Metropolitan Grill - Springfield, MO
Kai - Springfield, MO
Scratch Cupcakery - Cedar Falls, IA
Fong's Pizza - Des Moines, IA
Hessen Haus - Des Moines, IA
Royal Mile - Des Moines, IA
Django - Des Moines, IA
Zarri's - Albany, CA
Ratto's - Oakland, CA
Fenton's Creamery - Oakland, CA
Juan's Place - Berkeley, CA
Ti-Couz - San Francisco, CA
Bi-Rite Creamery - San Francisco, CA
Beto's Mexican Food - Reno, NV
Sushi Club - Reno, NV
Squeeze In - Truckee, CA
SS Super (Indian food) - Reno, NV
Gussie's Tamales & Bakery - El Paso, TX
Kiki's - El Paso, TX
Chico's Tacos - El Paso, TX
La Michoacana - Waterloo, IA
Johnson's Bakery - Waterloo, IA
Sarajlijas Bakery - Waterloo, IA
Sudan Cafe - Washington, DC
Brophy Bros. - Santa Barbara, CA
These are the sources I tap into for information about life and the world.
I'm a hopeless NPR junky, and rely on all things Huffington for most everything else:
Science News and Info:
Magazines I read:
An incredible source to find newspapers and magazines from around the world:
Orange is the New Black by Piper Kerman
The Imperfectionists by Tom Rachman
The Other Wes Moore by Wes Moore
Little Bee by Chris Cleave
Stories I Only Tell My Friends by Rob Lowe
The Help by Kathryn Stockett
Ford County by John Grisham
The Wimpy Kid Movie Diary by Jeff Kinney (w/ Gage)
A Reliable Wife by Robert Goolrick
The Blind Side by Michael Lewis
The Outlander by Gil Adamson
The Lake Shore Limited by Sue Miller
Driftless by David Rhoades
Truck: A Love Story by Michael Perry
Bright Shiny Morning by James Frey
Indian in the Cupboard by Lynn Reid Banks (w/ Gage)
Lush Life by Richard Price
Magic Tree House: Monday with a Mad Genius by Mary Pope Osborne (w/ Gage)
I Like You: Hospitality Under the Influence by Amy Sedaris
Magic Tree House: Christmas in Camelot by Mary Pope Osborne (w/ Gage)
The Last Lecture by Randy Pausch and Jeffrey Zaslow
Under the Dome by Stephen King
Diary of a Wimpy Kid series by Jeff Kinney (wanted to see what my kid was reading--they're pretty funny!)
Do Justice and Let the Sky Fall: Elizabeth F. Loftus and Her Contributions to Science, Law, and Academic Freedom by Harlene Hayne and Maryanne Garry
Forever Today: A Memoir of Love and Amnesia by Deborah Wearing
Born on a Blue Day: Inside the Extraordinary Mind of an Autistic Savant by Daniel Tammet
What the Best College Teachers Do by Ken Bain
This I Believe: The Personal Philosophies of Remarkable Men and Women by Jay Allison and Dan Gediman
The World Without Us by Alan Weisman
Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk
The Story of My Father by Sue Miller
Naked by David Sedaris
The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers
Lisey's Story by Stephen King
State of Fear by Michael Crichton
Mindhunter by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker
The Partly Cloudy Patriot by Sarah Vowell
I Am Not Myself These Days by Josh Kilmer-Purcell
Cell by Stephen King
My Friend Leonard by James Frey
A Million Little Pieces by James Frey
Other books I've read prior to me keeping this silly list (pre-April 2006)
On Writing by Stephen King
I Know this Much is True by Wally Lamb
The Five People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom
Holidays on Ice by David Sedaris
While I Was Gone by Sue Miller (I was on a Sue Miller kick for a few months)
Lost in the Forest by Sue Miller
The Good Mother by Sue Miller
Inventing the Abbots by Sue Miller
Family Pictures by Sue Miller
For Love by Sue Miller
The World Below by Sue Miller
The Distinguished Guest by Sue Miller
Hurricane by James Hirsch
Mystic River by Dennis Lehane
Black and Blue by Anna Quindlen
The Deep End of the Ocean by Jacquelyn Mitchard
Cry Wolf by Tami Hoag
Night Sins by Tami Hoag
Dark Paradise by Tami Hoag
Dark Horse by Tami Hoag
Alas Babylon by Pat Frank
Peyton Place by Grace Metalious
Swan Song by Robert McCammon
A Creed for the Third Millennium by Colleen McCullough
Siddartha by Herman Hesse
The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Animal Farm by George Orwell
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
1984 by George Orwell
Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
And plenty of trashy novels by Michael Crichton, James Hall, John Grisham, Patricia Cornwell, Dean Koontz, etc, etc.
Books I remember reading as a kid
House of Stairs by William Sleator
Island of the Blue Dolphins by Scott O'Dell
Time at the Top by David Ormondroyd
The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett
All the Nancy Drew mysteries by Carolyn Keene
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
A Wind Through the Door by Madeleine L'Engle
A Swiftly Tilting Planet by Madeleine L'Engle
Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret by Judy Blume
Forever by Judy Blume
Otherwise Known as Sheila the Great by Judy Blume
Wifey by Judy Blume
Deenie by Judy Blume
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
Blubber by Judy Blume
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
The Promise by Danielle Steele (and a lot of other sappy-spicy Steele books)
The Borrowers by Mary Norton
When is something so broken, that you trash it all and start from scratch? This high school in Rhode Island did just that. Fired all the teachers, and they're starting over. The comments to this post are in some ways better than the article itself--thoughtful critique and commentary of the American education system.