Miss America:More Than a Beauty Queen?-Shindle

While I was looking for pictures of beauty queens on Google, the only pictures I found were with beauty queens in nice clothes with make-up on. This is the exact stereotype that most people give for beauty queens: they are just beautiful women dressed up nicely. Everyone forgets that they are not just trying to win to be known as beautiful women, they also are trying to win a scholarship and to be looked up to as a good role model or leader in a community. They have also been known to donate money and speak at schools and in communities about some of the issues the world faces these days like AIDS/HIV or different cancers. As Kate Shindle says "The contestants who go to Atlantic City each year are intelligent, capable women who have something to say." (616) This quote is very important and although all the media and news reporters show is the beauty and maybe the talent in the show, we never see the interviews the contestants go through to get on to the show where they talk about their personal political views and platform issues.
Kate Shindle personally said "I helped raise an estimated $20 million to $30 million for HIV/AIDS organizations worldwide." (614) Kate proves to the world that beauty queens do think about others and don't just focus on their beauty or how good they look in a bathing suit. This whole article reminds me of the movie called Miss Congeniality because an undercover cop (Sandra Bullock) goes into the pageant thinking she is going to go through hell being with the stereotype she gives the contestants in the pageant. She gets to know the girls, and she comes to find them to be some of the most intelligent and goal striving women she has ever met. That just comes to prove that stereotypes should never stop you from meeting people, because you may come to find they are the most wonderful people you will ever meet.

One Nation, Slightly Divisible-Brooks

David Brooks explained the differences between people of Red America, who are like country folk, and people of Blue America, who are like the city people. "People in Blue America, which is my part of America, tend to live around big cities on the coasts. People in Red America tend to live on farms or in small towns or small cities far away from the coasts."(582) Most people have stereotypes of both types of people which saddens me because our world is based so much on how people look and not on the actual person. "many of them are racist and homophobic, and when you see them at highway rest stops, they're often really fat and their clothes are too tight."(583) This stereotype is terrible and people look at this and do not give one person they think is like this a chance to prove them wrong. Although yes I have stereotyped in the past and I'm not saying it makes you a bad person, all I want to say is people must give people a chance and not just judge them on the way they look. I give people a chance to prove me right and wrong and that is the difference between me and those who discriminatory and do not get to know people before they shut them out. "Some of the biggest differences between Red and Blue America show up on statistical tables. Ethnic diversity is one." (585) This was very interesting to me but I could see why this is because Red America tends to be small towns and not much of a spouse to choose from and in Blues America you have many different people with different races and ethnicity's to choose from. Yes we are different, but we are still people of the same homeland. "In the days immediately following September 11 the evidence seemed clear that despite our differences, we are still a united people. American flags flew everywhere..." (587) In reading this, I realized that just to unite people from different places in the same country, a disaster has to happen and that is a little sad. This article reminded me of the other article we read called "A Cafeteria Nation" where the world is like a cafeteria in high school and everyone has their own cliques. Another big reason many are divided is because there are haves and have-nots that both may discriminate against the other. This is the main reason there is such division in this country and I think if this was not true, our world would be a better place. "In Red America the self is small." "In Blue America the self is more commonly large." These two statements sum up why they are so different and I completely agree in most cases. We are all American citizens, which we all have in common, and thats why we are and should always be a united nation.

The Way We Wish We Were-Coontz

Throughout Stephanie Coontz's whole article, she brings up some very good points that make you step back and look at the traditional family in a different light. The traditional families that the students in her class thought up were exactly the family I would have thought up, but in my eyes this is very unlikely and I do not think the perfect traditional family was ever alive and going strong their whole lives. Also the whole women are stay at home moms who devote their time to the housework and children is a very hard thing to do these days now that things have become more expensive and jobs harder to find. There is technology now to help the mother with the housework and cooking now that she is working in more cases. "Within the home, prior to the diffusion of household technology at the end of the century, house cleaning and food preparation remained mammoth tasks."(679) Many say that industrialization was one reason the traditional family is hard to come by these days. "Contrary to the popular myth that industrialization destroyed "traditonal" extended families, this high point occurred between 1850 and 1855, during the most intensive period of early industrialization."(680) One thing that I personally do not believe just because the traditional family is non-existent anymore is that families are not as close. "A related myth is that modern Americans have lost touch with extended-kinship networks or have let parent-child bonds lapse."(683) Yes both parents work now and yes families do not spend as much time as a so called "traditional" family would, but that does not mean that the bonds between family members do not exist and they are just their to support eachother if needed. I am close with all of my close family members and although we do not eat at the dinner table every night like we used to and do not talk about our days, does not mean the bond isn't there between me and my family members. I know that my parents do not have the chance to spend as much time with us as they would like but our relationships are still the same. "The percentage of women who say they would prefer to stay home with their children if they could afford to do so rose from 33 percent in 1986 to 56 percent in 1990." This shows that for most it is not the parents fault that their children do not get their full attention all day, they are out there raising the money they need to survive and that is just they way it is. "parents today spend 40 percent less time with their children than did parents in 1965." I believe that the perfect traditoinal family would not function right in this day and age and I personally would not want to be part of a traditional family because to me they seem boring.

Crimes against Humanity-Churchill

Throughout this whole article, I was very ashamed and angry that people don't think certain things can be very degrading and are oblivious as to how it makes others feel. "Churchill's essay is a hard one for me to read percisely because it makes these stereotypes visible to me in unusual and decidedly in-your-face ways." (537) I personally do not think I have ever thought of team names as stereotyping or degrading until I read this essay. This essay truly opened my eyes on how stereotypical our world is and how we can be so ignorant. Professional sports teams have names like the Atlanta Braves or the Cleveland Indians and they also have mascots and gestures that show the stereotypical indian to be. This to me is wrong and when Churchill said the American Indian Movement leader Russell Means compared the practice to contemporary Germans naming their soccer teams the "Jews," "Hebrews," and "Yids" it opened my eyes to how hurtful it can be to Indians. (537) When Churchill reported that the major newspapers and television networks stated this as "no big deal" I thought of them as heartless and racist. The essay became a little sarcastic to prove his point when Churchill said all the demeaning and hurtful names to call different races as professional sports teams and then said "Now, don't go getting 'overly sensitive' out there. None of this is demeaning or insulting, at least not when it's being done to Indians." (538) I thought he proved his point right in this part of the essay and I think he would have won his argument right here. He said all the hurtful names of every race for every professional team and I don't think that anyone could counter this. In the Nuremberg Precedents, I think Julius Streicher got what he deserved because he instigated the genocide of the Jews. He dehumanized Jews by depicting them in a extraordinary derogatory fashion in cartoons and other images which helped in the German public to hate them. "Understand that the treatment of Indians in American popular culture is not 'cute' or 'amusing' or just 'good clean fun." I believe him after reading this essay and I will try not to depict Indians as savage or inhuman in anyway.

A Letter to America - Atwood

Margaret Atwood discusses the negatives America has brought onto itself. "She is no longer sure what America stands for."(5) She writes "America" a letter about her concerns on the problems and trust she has in America. First she explains the different positives about America like the story of the "city upon a hill" or the different ways America was portrayed in movies as standing for freedom, honesty, and justice. Near the end of the letter she explains her disappointment on how America is gutting the constitution by allowing anyone in. Also America allows for mail, some of our most personal things, to be spied on. (5) She asks America "When did you get so scared? You didn't used to be easily frightened" (5) This whole letter by Atwood proves to me that America is not what it used to be or seemed to be and I completely agree. I do not think we have total freedom like we are supposed to have. I mean I know we can't have a good running government and society without rules and regulations, but sometimes I think the government takes a little too much freedom from us. This letter to America tells what most think of America now and how it is not what it seems to be to most people around the world.

Arranging a Marriage in India-Nanda

Nanda throughout this article is having a hard time helping her Indian friend's son a wife. At first she thought that arranging marriages for your children was wrong because they wouldn't know their spouse's on a personal level. But once she heard her friends reasons for choosing for her son, she kind of understood and wanted to help. Throughout helping, she found that it was not as easy being matchmaker for someone in India as it was in America. You had many things to look at like class, the familie's background, how well educated, and many more things. Nanda found someone that she thought would be good but the mother of the son said they had way too many siblings and they wouldn't be able to afford a glorious wedding and a big wedding gift. To me this was ridiculous and I thought to myself, using my own opinions and beliefs, that a marriage should not be about a families financial standing or how well the wedding can be put on, it should be about the love between the two people. In India Love is the product of marriage and in America Marriage is the product of love. This quote was said in class today and I totally agreed that this article proves that is the way the Indians think. The children of the family can focus more on their lives and living them than on marriage because they have arranged marriages by their parents. Overall I thought the article was good and I can now see why some cultures have arranged marriages. Ethnocentrism is the perfect word to describe this article because Nanda went into this situation with her own values and opinions and judged their culture based on them. But she soon realized, as did I reading this article, that they do not arrange them just to be mean or cruel, they do it so they can insure their children the best lives with the best spouse and family.

Shakespeare in the Bush-Bohannan

First of all, Bohannan went to West Africa because she was an anthropologist. She lived with an African tribe and was asked to be told the story of Hamlet. While telling the story, she was stopped constantly because the tribesmen did not understand certain things. They did not believe in ghosts and said it must have been an omen or zombie. Another thing they didn't understand was why the mother of Hamlet took two years to remarry. In their culture you had to have a husband to hoe the farms. "Two years is too long," "Who will hoe your farms for you while you have no husband?" If you were chief, or the head of everything, in the African tribe's culture, the chief had more than one wife, so they did not understand why Hamlet nor his brother had more than one wife. At the end of the article, the old man of the tribe told her that she had told the end of Hamlet wrong which was very funny to me since they did not know the story and weren't the one's telling it. He told her how the end of the story went and put his own beliefs and values behind it. All these misunderstandings to me is because we all use our own opinions and beliefs to understand things. Bohannan did get a little upset and annoyed that she was being interrupted, but she did understand that where they came from, things were done and looked upon differently than in America. There are universal truths, but many are not exactly the same. One universal truth is respecting your elders. Although in some cultures it is more valued and respected than in other cultures, I think all cultures have some sort of this. In America, respecting our elders is told by many, but we do not respect them as much as other cultures like India's or African's do.

No Name Woman

This article was very disturbing and I was very sad reading it. First of all, for a woman to be raped and blamed for getting pregnant by a man other than her husband is just wrong. Second for her own family and friends to think of her as an outcast and not even believe or care that she was raped is even worse. The title "No Name Woman" is perfect because she just sat back in the shadows because she didn't want anyone to know she was pregnant, and also because she basically died when she found out she was pregnant. You can't lead a normal life when your whole village, family, and friends disown you and think of you as nothing. She had to sit at a different table for those who are looked down upon and was fed leftovers. They also terrorized her house and slaughtered her families animals. For the father not to speak of his sister, No Name Woman, is a little sad. He doesn't even acknowledge he had a sister because she was raped which is not her fault. Also to hear about all the customs of having you feet shrunk and to be in agony and pain was a little disturbing. Women should be able to express the way they look and to not be able to wear their hair down, to always have it in a bun is ridiculous. In conclusion this article was all depressing, sad, and very disturbing.

A Tale of Two Divorces-Roiphe

Throughout Anne Roiphe's article, I thought about how lucky I am that I have never went through a divorce. I have a lot of friends who have divorced parents and I always think it's not fun when they have to visit their mom or dad on the weekends, and they aren't with both their parents everyday. Roiphe's mother should have divorced her husband. Instead she stayed with him and didn't live the life she deserved. Even though she stayed with him, it was not healthy for the child because seeing your parents fight everyday and not respect eachother, shows the child the wrong way to treat people. I think that because her parents had a bad marriage, she was bound to make the mistake as well. I agree somewhat with Roiphe in that marriages are not solely on loving your spouse. A marriage also has to do with living with that person, and having responsibilities with money and kids. Some people just rush into a marriage because they believe they are in love. They do not stop and think can I live with this person? Are we going to get a long with eachother and be able to take on the responsibilities together? Going through one divorce is hard, but knowing she went through two was even worse. Divorces affect everyone around you and especially your children. Although divorces affect your children negatively, you should not stay in a marriage if all you do is fight with your spouse and you constantly get abused verbally by your spouse.

Shop Like a Man-Underhill

Paco Underhill makes some very true and interesting points about the male shopper. It is known by pretty much everyone that a man does not like to shop, (well most men) its just a fact in life many know. "It's a struggle just to get them to be patient company for a woman while she shops." (187) But if a store knew how to get their attention and get them to start shopping, they would be set to make a lot of money. As Underhill states "The manufacturers, retailers and display designers who pasy attention to male ways, and are willing to adapt the shopping experience to them, will have an edge in the twenty-first century."(188) I know from personal experience that when I am shopping and my brothers or dad are with me, they hassle me and I don't get to spend as much time, therefore I probably won't buy as much. Underhill states my poing "so the woman's comfort level plummets when he's by her side; she spends the entire trip feeling anxious and rushed."(191) Men are also funny when it comes to shopping because although they did not buy anything or don't even know what his wife/girl is buying, he will definitely take out his money and pay for it because he gets a thrill out of it. I think this is because they feel more like a man and having money shows more power. I personally love to go shopping with my dad, even though it's rare and hard to do, because for some reason he will usually say yes to anything. "men seem so anxious to get out of the store that they'll say yes to almost anything."(188) I remembered reading another article about men called "Guys vs. Men" where it stated technology (mainly computers) was a man's favorite thing nowadays and when reading this article by Underhill he states "Computer hardware and software have taken the place of cars and stereo equipment as the focus of male love of technology and gadgetry."(190) I totally agree with this because my dad is always on the computer and loves to go shopping for hardware and computer stuff. Although he still loves talking about cars, I think technology has taken over him. Overall I think that if stores just have sections for men, they would do exceptionally well. "Take any category where women now predominate, and figure out how to make it appealing to men."(194)

Tannen and Pipher

Both Pipher and Tannen wrote a little on how they felt there was unequal attention and treatment between boys and girls in the classroom. Education has become more equal in gender in my opinion but they think otherwise. One connection I found between both articles is when Tannen wrote “Going back to childhoods of boys and girls, it seems possible that the boys had had more experiences, from the time they were small, that encouraged them to challenge and argue with authority figures than girls had.” (239) And referring back to Pipher’s article she stated “Analysis of classroom videos shows that boys receive more classroom attention and detailed instruction than girls. They are called on more often than girls and are asked more abstract, open-ended and complex questions.” (280) The first quote by Tannen seemed to be answered by the second quote by Pipher in that the reason boys do argue with authority figures more is because all throughout school they were asked more complex questions that stimulated their minds, where as the girls just sat and watched. As Pipher stated “Boys are likely to be criticized for their behavior, while girls are criticized for intellectual inadequacy.” (280) This is another reason why I think Tannen and Pipher feel girls do not argue with authority. Tannen, in an experiment, noticed girls spoke up less than boys. This can also be because in school when girls were younger, they were criticized for intellectual inadequacy and are afraid of being wrong or arguing with anyone. Another reason for not speaking up might be lack of confidence. Because they were always criticized, they may just think anything they say will not be relevant and will just be stupid to say. As Tannen stated, “not one female dared challenge or refute an author’s writings. The only questions that the females asked involved a problem they had with the content of the reading.” (238-239) This goes along with Pipher “Because their success is attributed to good luck or hard work and failure to lack of ability, with every failure, girls’ confidence is eroded.” (280) Therefore because of girl’s lack of confidence because they were criticized, as they get into higher classes where they are wanted to question writers and teachers, they do not speak up. They just sit back and let the boys take the questions and credit. Pipher says “Junior high is when girls begin to fade academically.”(281) By college when there are discussions, and criticism of writings and your opinions are wanted, girls are not all there according to these two authors

What are homosexuals for?-Andrew Sullivan

Sullivan explains and helps us understand what it is like to be homosexual. Throughout his paper, he truly tells his feelings and experiencences, as well as uses examples of others experiences to show what a homosexual goes through in life. I don't feel many come out and say they are gay until they are for sure they are gay. Once a gay man/female tells people he/she is gay, they feel a lot more free and feel like they are living, as apposed to keeping it a secret and living a lie as proven by Sullivan in this example, "but a t his funeral couldn't help but reflect that he had at least tasted a few years of life. He had regained himself before he lost himself forever." According to Sullivan "Homosexuals in contemporary America tend to die young; they sometimes die estranged from their families; they die among friends who have become their new families; they die surrounded by young death, and by the arch symbols of cultural otherness." This to me seemed like they die not literally, but inside because they go through their whole lives living as someone different from everyone else and by some not wanted. It is sad that those who are homosexual cannot have a biological child, and therefore cannot go through the experience of having their own child, something the two can share together. Although they can adopt a child, it is not the same as having your own and passing your bloodline on. "The presence of homosexuals in the arts, in literature, in architecture, in design, in fashion could be understood, as some have as a simple response to oppression." Alot of gay people are in these "safe professions" to hide and protect each other. I believe all of this to be true because these professions are swarming with homosexuals. Homosexuals have a much more difficult and different life from heterosexuals and his essay just starts to explaing all the things they must overcome.

Guys vs. Men-Barry

Barry makes some very comical points about how guys are considered guys and not men. While I read all these comical facts about "guys", I thought it was ironic that a guy/man wrote this. It made "guys" look a little stupid and very egoistic. When I read about the business guys who decided to go down to the park and race eachother, I literally pictured all of this. "Which they did, a bunch of guys taking off their shoes and running around barefoot in a public park on company time." I pictured middle aged guys in suits or work attire racing eachother and one suddenly tries to hard to win and hurts himself. Guys have the biggest egos and I should know I have two brothers and a dad who always thinks he is right or better. They fight about being right till you just give in, its what they do. Barry also explained how guys buy such powerful computers that can probably do amazing things but they just simply type on and do absolutely nothing else. This was a very funny statement about guys because my dad buys many things that are usually the most powerful or have the most functions to them. He tells my mom that he will get good use out of these things, and years later he still just uses the damn thing for one use. Guys also have trouble communicating their intimate feelings as barry says. Women will talk for hours about a fight they had with their husbands but the guys will just watch the playoffs together. When Barry wrote "This is a book about guys. It's not a book about men," you have to believe him. Their is a huge difference between the two and usually, their is a "guy" in every man. At least every man I know.

Academic Selves-Mary Pipher

Mary Pipher's main intent in this article is to show their is inequality between genders in the classroom. She says that boys tend to be seen as role models, receive the teachers attention, and speak up in class more than girls. "Junior high is when girls begin to fade academically." I personally do not believe any of this boys do better than girls in school. It is the opposite in school these days. Boys tend to do worse than girls in school and girls seem to mature and want to learn, quicker than boys do. Maybe education was like this in the past, but surely it is nothing like this now. She says that boys are likely to be praised for academics and girls are likely to be praised for their clothing. I really don't know where she is getting all of these facts, but in my educational experiences, it was nothing like this. Girls in the classroom are the one's who usually paid the most attention in class and the teachers would acknowledge that by handing out awards; which were mainy received by the females. This article was an interesting opinion, but not one that I would agree with and fight for.

Learning to Read - Malcom X

Overall, I was very impressed after hearing Malcom X's story on how he learned to read and write on his own in PRISON!! I mean wow, who would of thought someone in prison would even think of learning to read and wanting to understand stories. I felt that Malcom X going off on a tangent about black history shows us that he trully did teach himself not only to read the material but actually understand it and relate to it. You can not just read something, you have to truly pay attention and understand it, and that is exactly what Malcom X taught himself to do. "That was the way I started copying what eventually became the entire dictionary." This quote fascinated me because first of all a person outside of prison probably wouldn't have the drive or time to do this, and secondly, I would never imagine someone in prison to have any drive or motivation to write and learn all the words in the dictionary. "When I had progressed to really serious reading, every night at about 10 P.M. I would be outraged with the 'lights out'. It always seemed to catch me right in the middle of something engrossing." I can relate to this because I know how intense books can get and when I am interrupted and can't finish the book, I tend to get pretty mad. Throughout Malcom's biography, he seems to me to get mainly the negative things that people (mainly Europeans) did. He must have had a lot of anger built up and decided to let it out through telling of the horrible things people have done throughout our history. "As I see it today, the ability to read awoke inside me some long dormant craving to be mentally alive." This quote was very inspiring for those who do not read very much to read and see what they can get out of it. The main thing this writing taught me is that reading is very important in life and we all can become more mentally alive by knowing how to read.

English99-Frank Gannon

Gannon's essay is mainly about the new English 99 class that he was given to teach at a small college. He at first wanted a Nonfiction Writing class but ended up with a class where the students were not ready for an English class that counts for a bachelor's degree and is a very profitable class for the college. It is profitable for the college because they made money off those who were most likely not going to graduate and were taking a class that did not give them any credits. "The truth of the matter was that English 99 was there so that the college could get some money from these kids before they flunked out or quit." This to me is wrong on so many levels. First of all a class should not be there unless you are going to use it in the future. Taking a class at a college should be inspiring and not just there so the college can make money. I also feel bad for Gannon because his first real professor job was basically fake and then he gets fired. No wonder he wrote about this class in this essay. "There was no seating chart in English 99, so anyone could sit anywhere in the room, but, for some reason, the classes always segregated themselves." I believe this to be true at times, but to me, in college no one really knows anyone and I do not really put a label on myself when I enter a classroom. I usually sit down wherever there is room to sit and preferably not in the front only because I like to see everything in front of me. In high school this was true. At lunch many sat in their little groups, which were usually groups that had something in common: race, gender, religion, sports, etc. Overall this essay was Gannon letting many know that those classes that do not count towards your degree or the classes that you receive no credits for are most likely there for the college to get money out of you. Gannon was clearly upset with the class he had to take over with all the terrible papers he had to grade and all for nothing. The only thing he had to do was pass or fail the student and did not even have to really grade anything. I would probably be angry to and would be very glad to have been let go.

Learning in the Key of Life-Jon Spayde

In Spayde's interesting idea that a truly good education is obtained through the connections we make in the real world made me think about what I learn in class as well as walking around throughout my life. I could not say I learn more in a classroom than I do in the real world or that I learn more in the real world than I do in the classroom. I think you learn different things in both situations, both being very important in your life. "Will the humanities make you rich? Absolutely. But not in terms of money. In terms of life." This quote reminds me of my grandmother because she is always telling me that if your not happy, money can not fill the void that is making you unhappy. You must find something you love to do, not thinking of the money you will make. I do believe her on some levels and do agree with both my grandmother and Spayde, but money can make your life a whole lot easier, which can help you in the process of becoming happy. In Spayde's essay, he also quotes David Orr who is a professor at Oberlin College. "The aim of slow knowledge is resilience, harmony and the preservation of long-standing patterns that give our lives aesthetic, spiritual and social meaning." Spayde says "Orr says that we are focusing far too much of our energy and resources on fast knowledge, ignoring all the richness and meaning slow knowledge adds to our lives." To me this means that we are trying to learn and gather as much quantity of knowledge as we can in as little time as possible when we should really be absorbing, understanding, and appreciating the things we learn. Gaining knowledge slowly helps you to understand the responsibility that comes with new knowledge whereas learning too quickly you might sometimes use that knowledge irresponsibly.

School-Kyoko Mori

In Mori's essay, she explains and shows through example the differences of recieving an education in the United States or Japan. She says that in Japan, the education is more strict and harsh whereas the education in the U.S. is more informal and helpful. She also states that in America, people in their thirties and forties have a chance to change their lives by going back to college, but in Japan it's a different story. In Japan she says it is practically impossible to go back to school. This is one reason I value my education in the United States. Knowing that their is not much pressure on choosing a career I think can really help you find your true passion. I can search around and truly find what I will truly love doing. If I was pressured, knowing I would not be able to go back to school for a second chance in finding my passion, I would probably make a mistake and end up doing something I did not enjoy. Mori also tells how in Japan, the grading was not straightforward in that the teachers do not tell you what exactly you need to work on, they would simply say "Your writing needs improvement" or "I can see you tried some but you still have a long way to go." In my personal experience, my papers usually come back to me all marked up which is very helpful and when I write my final paper I feel a lot better turning it back in. "The paradox about the two styles of teaching is that neither emphasizes what it considers to be truly important." This statement she makes is somewhat true but I think that the Western approach to teaching is more useful to a student so they can fix the problems they have in their papers and not just sit there and ponder about it; not truly learning what was wrong. The only good I read about the Japanese education was "Most Japanese students have public-performance opportunities many of my American friends-artists and musicians-don't." But like she said " the price is too high."

Michael Sokolove

Throughout Sokolove's essay, he explains how college sports, mainly football, have become all about money and not really just about playing the game. I agree with this because without money, football at colleges would not succeed or even be there. He tells how colleges try to be a part of the Division 1 A and how when a part of them, they barely break even in money or dig themselves a huge hole in debt. "The mantra of the need to spend money to make money can be used to justify a great deal of spending, without leading an institution to any destination other than a deeper financial hole" -James Shulman and William Bowen. Sokolove also shows through examples that many of the colleges will do anything to keep their sports players in the game. For example: "the university president resigned in the fall after acknowledging that he ordered a change in the calculation of a star basketball player's gpa." College football needs to be about playing the game and not about all the money and fame. I know it will never just be about playing the game because our world is all about money, but I will always think it should be about the fun and love of the game.



When Sokolove starts to talk about Jim Leavitt and how he contributed to the University of South Florida by becoming the head football coach, I became very interested in the reading. This portion of the essay reminded me of those dramatic football movies where one coach loves the game and not just for the money and fame, but because football is a part of him. When hearing about the $180,000 salary Leavitt recieved, I became a little upset because it says the average for Conference USA coaches is $410,000. When reading this "And implied that the coach was too dedicated to the next game and next victory to properly focus on his own self-interest" it made me wonder where people like this went in sports. A lot of college coaches seem to be there for the money rather than love of the game. Near the end of the essay when Sokolove talks more about the student athletes at U.S.F and their reactions to football, I was surprised to hear that they are not only athletes, but students as well and are to attend all classes. The way the players are basically forced to attend class and forced to keep up their grades is a very good thing Leavitt did. I found it humorous when U.S.F beat Southern Mississippi and the U.S.F athletic director wanted to give Leavitt a raise . The fact that the only reason they pay the man what he should be paid based on winning a game is kind of sad yet it happens a lot throughout many of the Universities. The schools do not want to lose the coach that is helping them win not only 0n the field but with the budget and publicity as well.

Tannan and Cheney

Cheney discusses that American history education nowadays is taught negatively to an extreme. Some educators are teaching that Colombus was a thief "a greedy man and a murderer". One teacher, Cheney says, teaches her students "the positive" myth of Colombus is used for political reasons and that the government supports this version only to keep from being criticized for U.S. imperialism. Cheney thinks that history education was too positive in the past and is now turning more negative as the years go on. Cheney is a conservative and they are generally traditional, so I can see where this change in education can upset her. In my personal experience in history, I was taught that Colombus was a hero who founded America and never once heard that Colombus was a thief of any kind. I think politics should not have anything to do with education. Education should be the truth, whether that be positive or negative. If your not taught all aspects of history, good and the bad, how are we as Americans to learn from it. Cheney also discusses how in one incident the AAUW said that textbooks are discriminatory against women which is not true. The AAUW also made claims about sexual harrassment in school. Because of these reports the AAUW issued, congress passed legislation for schools to be more female friendly and of course millions of dollars of federal funds went to the schools. I dont think that politics should be involved in any aspect of school. School is there for you to learn.

In general Tannen discusses the different opinions on how arguments are productive or unproductive in the classroom. One example she uses is how teachers are at first excited to hear their students in a heated debate, but soon realize it is usually only a couple people who speak and they are usually out to be right and "go for the most gross and dramatic statements they can muster" instead of listening to the oponents view. I agree that in most classroom debates students tend to get very emotional and heated when disagreed upon. Tannen believes that there are usually more than two sides in discussions and we shouldn't just look at the two, we should discuss all the points of views and opinions.

What is a Liberal Education?-Donald Kagan

Throughout Kagans article about what exactly is liberal education, he goes back in history and talks alot about Universities in medieval times and how important people in that era thought Universities and education were. In the middle ages the 7 liberal arts were grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. These are very different to the liberal arts we have today. To the champions of a liberal education, the 4 kinds of goals of it were the achievement of the contemplative life, to shape character, to prepare one for their career, and to let the student have their freedom. All of these goals I believe still hold true in todays Universities because those are the goals many achieve after attending a University.
Kagan wrote on how some who attended a University might sometimes be called Pedants. A pedant is one who is self-absorbed and wasn't into socializing; was obsessed with ones education. This was looked at as wrong by many of the fathers who didn't want their sons working too hard or ruining their social life. This was quite humurous to me because nowadays when one is hard working and stays focused on his studies, he most likely will succeed and his parents will usually be very proud.
The quote "A man of the highest education ought to know something of everything, and everything of something" I believe is very true. If we were to attend college and focus on only our major, we would only be educated on one thing. I do think that a person who knows a little of everything and also a lot of one thing would do better in life than one who only knows a lot of one thing. This quote broadened the field of learning and was known as "universal knowledge".
In conclusion, Kagan talks about how if a college is to offer a liberal education, they should uphold the freedoms that we are entitled to which are the right of free speech, free exchange of ideas, present unpopular points of view, and freedom to move around and use the universities facilities without interference. I believe that Universities should give us these freedoms to some extent. I do not think that speakers whos goal is to start a riot and put others in danger should be able to speak on campus unless they show that none would be harmed in doing so. Liberal Education is important in a university to make people more well rounded and if their career doesnt go the way they planned, they have other subjects from the liberal arts to fall back on

The Idea of a University-John Henry Newman

Even though this was difficult reading I think Newman was trying to say that the goal of the University is to help you become ready for the world and be a "good member of society", but not to train you in a particular profession or educate you in one particular area. I think todays Universities do both, you get general education in a lot of different areas and also professions.

The Case Against College- Linda Lee

Although some of what Lee said may be true, I still think that going to college and recieving a higher education is important to your life in the future. She does prove her point that you don't necessarily need to go to college to succeed in life in many examples, but to me its not just for your future, its to find out what in life you enjoy and the experience you get going to college and learning what your good at. I agree with Lee's views on how many have succeeded without college degrees, but I am still glad I have attended college after high school, and so far I am enjoying my college experiences.