Category Archives: Best of…

50 Shades for Rays (of suns)

Posted on by
1

Now that the weather  here in State College has FINALLY begun to warm up people are once again excited to be outdoors. Traveling to class doesn’t seem as bad, that is, as long as you’ve got your handy pair of sunglasses protecting your eyes from the increasingly bright rays of sunlight beating down. Now the sun is great. It warms the earth, is makes the flowers grow, and it helps all us pasty people get our skin back to an alive looking color. However, the sun also brings with it blinding rays so sunglasses become a must.

Sunglasses date back to pre-historic times when inuets peoples of the north would wear whale bones with slits in them to protect them from the reflecting light off the sun off the snow. Flash forward to the early 1900’s and that is when sunglasses really started to become popular. It is widely believed that it was celebrities, who were attempting to go unrecognized by fans that made sunglasses as common and as popular as they are today. It is interesting to see how the different styles of sunglasses have progressed through the eras

In the fifties cat-rimmed glasses were popular for women and Marilyn Monroe could often be seen sporting them while dodging ex-husbands. And men coming back from war brought with them aviators.

Then in the 1960’s and 70’s you have Jackie Kennedy making famous her oversized bug eye glass with headscarves. And John Lennon made small round glasses a staple in the hippie wardrobe.

It seemed that in the 80’s everyone from Michael Jackson, to Tom Cruise, to your own mother owned a pair of Ray Ban Wayfarers, because really, what else were you going to wear with your keyboard tie and checkered vans.

Modern Baseball has made popular Oakley Brand sunglasses.

It seems that our generation will be offering Stunner Shades, made popular by Kanye West to the history of sunglasses, which is slightly embarrassing considering they hardly keep the sun out of your eyes and make you look like an alien.

I had attempted to observe campus on sunny day this week and determine which style of sunglasses was the most popular among students, but I was unsuccessful. Many of the above styles were prominent and one did not really outshine any of the others. I am beginning to notice that our generation is enjoy the mixing and matching of different generation’s styles and that produces a new look that is both retro and modern. But I ask you, what is your sunglass of choice. Aviators? Wayfarers? Or Whale-Bone?

Should We Abolish Tenure?

Posted on by
5

“It should be recognized that the proper status of teachers and due public regard for the profession of teaching are of major importance.”
UNESCO (Art. 5 of 1996 Recommendation)

As the United States continues to fall behind many other developed countries of the world in the realm of test scores there has been a larger and larger push to improve our education system. One, if not the most, important factors in a child receiving a solid education is who they are receiving the information from. Intelligent, passionate, creative teachers are necessary to ensure that a child, or college student, is able to grow and develop academically. However, America seems to be lacking in the amount of these skilled educators. There are lots of possible explanations for why our teachers seem to lack the skills necessary to inspire and teach students today but one possible way that is being discussed in order to change the system would be to abolish tenure.

Tenure commonly refers to life tenure in a job and specifically to a senior academic’s contractual right not to have his or her position terminated without just cause. Reaching this point in a professor or teacher’s career is very important to them. Under most teaching contracts the school can simply choose to not sign the educator on for the next year for no apparent reason. Once a teacher obtains tenure however they cannot be let go unless there is just cause. This job security is important for educators because it acts as a type of reward after many years of schooling and dedicated years as teachers. It also allows them the chance to explore new research or teaching methods that could previously have “rocked the boat” and risked their employment. It also protects senor members of the teaching staff from being replaced by younger, new teachers. Teaching used to be a profession that was considered to be guaranteed and to always have available, steady jobs. But now that there is a push to eliminate the unskilled teachers from the system all educators are under constant surveillance and pressure to “teach better”. If teachers cannot produce the adequate test scores from their class or get bad reviews then their job is in jeopardy. While this might help to improve test scores it may be hurting students and discouraging future teachers. Another huge reason education is not a field many people want to get into anymore is the fact they there are not many benefits to it. The paychecks are very low in comparison to some other, perhaps less crucial jobs. And the fact that it is so easy to be let go is frightening to young teachers with student loans. By offering tenure it gives an incentive for more people to want to go into teaching and is a reward for those already in it. Proponent of tenure claim that if the University is careful to hire good professors from the start then once they review their application for tenure they will find that they still have the same level of passion. In addition after they have tenure some professors and teachers will be more comfortable challenging the authorities of a university or pursuing more intensive research. Educators should not have to fear speaking about certain concepts or topics because the University will punish them. And a solid staff of tenured professors creates an environment filled with knowledgeable teachers with experience. Tenure definitely protects those good teachers and professor who worked hard to achieve it, but it also protects the not-as-good ones and keeps members of the teaching staff on board while other, better teachers may be out of a job.

In order to obtain tenured professors or teachers commonly have to display outstanding teaching and research efforts. However, since it is difficult to accurately rate how effective the teaching is, more often than not professors must focus most of their efforts of pursuing research topics and writing papers that commonly no one reads. While conducting this research it means that they focus less on creating valuable lesson plans, thinking of enriching assignments, and on their students in general. Their day to day duties can get passed down to junior faculty or teaching assistants which provides their students with an education unequal to what they need or are paying for. Then once a professor or teacher is granted their tenure there is little more incentive to perform. They have achieved their job security and for those teachers they have lost their passion, their job becomes unimportant to them and they become lazy. Also hurting their students.

The system for obtaining tenure seems to be all around detrimental to education. Teachers and professors are put in a position where they are fearful about job security so they need the tenure. But by attempting to gain it they are essentially forced into being less attentive educators, so the students suffer. Then after they do get it there is a chance that they will become lazy and abuse their new found job security. It is definitely a controversial issue and the debate has become extremely topical. Improving our education system is a major concern since we want our youth to be able to compete with other industrialized countries. By improving our teachers and professors the idea is that we will see the results in the student’s test scores. However, pressuring the teachers to teach to the test or conduct unnecessary research in order to achieve tenure is not the proper way to gain these results. In addition by granting these teachers tenure it could possibly result in educators who do not have any motivation or incentive to teach to the best of their abilities any longer. However, if we eliminate the tenure system it may detour future teachers from pursing a degree and other skilled lectures will feel abused because of their lack of job stability. It would seem that the entire system needs to be revisited. Teachers and professors deserve to be treated fairly and since they are responsible for the nurturing and shaping of our nation’s youth their pay and benefits should reflect that. However, it is also extremely important to make sure the right teachers are in these positions as well.

The Hipster Paradox

Posted on by
5

 

I tried to find a definition for the word ‘hipster’ but I was only informed that, “definitions are too mainstream.” However, the term has become such a part of our everyday culture that I don’t think I need to provide a definition for you to know what I’m talking about. Today’s modern hipsters can be seen sporting many different looks but commonly oversized, dark-framed glasses (possibly without lenses), scarves, skinny jeans or pants, cardigans, hats, and facial hair. Essentially looking like River Couomo the lead singer of Weezer

<– Hipster Hunk

 

But it’s not just indie rock-stars rocking the hipster wear anymore. Today everyone wants a piece of that non-commercialism-pie, while still shopping at their favorite name brand stores of course, because EW thrift stores are dirty. So how did we go from nerd, to nerd-chic? Let’s take a look back at the history of the hipster.

The counter-culture movement in society can be traced back to the Beatniks of the 30’s and 40’s who strived to go against the norm and embrace individualism. That is essentially what the hipster movement of today started out as, going against mainstream culture and society’s expectations. The problem is, they’ve become too successful. They’ve made dressing like a hipster so desirable that now the very people they wanted to alienate themselves from are trying to be just like them. The article we read about the black nerd on grantland was similar. Those NBA players were attempting to go against the stereotypes and embrace dressing “intelligently” or like “nerds” but I fear they’ve started a movement that’s more annoying than groundbreaking. Excuse my high-school-clique stereotypes but I see more popular girls putting on big glasses along with the rest of their designer outfit and claiming to be nerds than geeky people receiving more respect for their fashion choices.

 

<– Girl that thinks she’s deep because of her glasses and ridiculously expensive camera

The point I’m trying to make is, true hipsters have found themselves in quite the conundrum. I think it’s awesome for people to be individuals and not fall for commercialism, but the problem is the thrift store, “I don’t care how I look-look” has become mainstream! A true bohemian would take Macklemore’s advice and pop some tags, but then they risk wearing the same outfit that someone just bought at Express for triple the cost, which is completely against the point. If you want to embrace the hipster ideology one really has to try to eliminate the corporate logos and price tags from their life. And as for hipsters, I’m sorry you have to deal with the fact thirteen year old girls are coping your style, but I’m sure you’ll find new ways to express your collective individualism soon enough.

 

 

Affirmative Action in Higher Education: Helpful or Harmful?

Posted on by
5

In 1961, amidst the civil rights movement of America, the President of the day, John F. Kennedy official signed Executive Order 10925, which stated that any discrimination because of race, color, or creed goes against the principles of the US Constitution and is hence unlawful and wrong. This was the first act of the now called “affirmative action” which is a term that was first used by President Kennedy in a speech were he demanding “affirmation action to ensure that all applicants are employed, and treated as employees, without regard to race, color, or creed.” And of course this was a huge step in US history, later the Order would be changed to include women as well, as thus elimate all supposed biases against minorities. The sixties was a time of great turmoil in America with many minority groups, specifically the African Americans and Feminists, demanded that something be done to change the system which they firmly believed was biased towards white men, and in all honesty, most-likely was. It was probably true that employers, and also universities, made decisions on who to accept based on “old fashioned” ideas and stereotypes. Not to mention the resources available for different groups available growing up were widely unjust, where Caucasian boys were given many more opportunities than say their female counterparts who were usually assumed to simply become wives and mothers. There is no doubt that something had to be done to say, “even the playing field.” Minorities experienced incredible amounts of discrimination for generations so in order to make any progress in the realm of equality, positive, or affirmative actions had to take place to propel minorities into the so-called system.

As a result of these measures colleges and university felt a pressure to increase diversity in their schools. There was a large push to accept more ethnic minorities and women even if they were perhaps not at the same academic level as their previous, less-diverse, students. Still, this seemed like a good idea. Of course some of these minority members were not going to be as impressive as their white counterparts because of the discrimination they faced growing up and the only way to improve their social ranking would be to first give them a proper education at a good university. In addition, diverse schools expose students to a wide variety of people, cultures, and opinions, and many would argue that that enhances the college experience. Also, minorities of lower classes that were now able to attend better schools were being taken out of a poisonous inner city environment and instead left to better themselves with education. Many attribute the creation of the African-American middle class to the effects of affirmative action. Overall, affirmative action was seeming like a solid plan to promote general equality. Now having an ethnic background was no longer a disadvantage but rather a strong advantage since colleges were striving to be more diverse and not appear biased.

However, is this still not biased then? Are we not combating racism with just more racism? And is it fair to be choosing less impressive minorities for positions that a nonminority member worked extremely hard for? In a landmark Supreme Court case Grutter vs Bollinger a female college graduate of Michigan State was denied entrance to law school because of the universities emphasis on the importance of race, thus making a white female undesirable, which she claimed violated the 14th amendment. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of affirmative action but it did lead Michigan to join states like California and Washington which have officially banned affirmative action and the use of race or gender to influence acceptance. These states claim that affirmative action creates a sort of reverse racism as well as in counterproductive to equality. If the point of affirmative action was to eliminate race biases it seems to have failed. This chart illustrates that fact.

College Acceptance Rates (2005)[34]

Overall Acceptance Rate

Black Acceptance Rate

 % Difference

Harvard

10.0%

16.7%

+ 67.0%

MIT

15.9%

31.6%

+ 98.7%

Brown

16.6%

26.3%

+ 58.4%

Penn

21.2%

30.1%

+ 42.0%

Georgetown

22.0%

30.7%

+ 39.5%

 

It doesn’t seem fair that non-minorities should be punished by the mistakes of their forefathers and now face their own discrimination in college acceptance. It also undermines the achievements of minorities since they must live with the stigma that they were helped by unfair biases in their favor.

In a place like University Park every day you encounter thousands of students coming from ethnic or racial backgrounds, and personally I think that is great. I think it’s great that I attend such a diverse university that accepts people from all around the world and I am able to meet so many intelligent, talented people that didn’t come from my background. However, I believe these people should have been accepted solely based on merit. I know when I was filling out forms I would check the “prefer to not specify” option under race because I think it is ridiculous a university would even ask that question.  As part of the female minority I do believe that at a time the system worked so much in favor of white men that minorities did need a boost to help them move forward. However, now I believe, perhaps naively, that a lot of that discrimination is disappearing and I hope that my acceptance to Penn State was not to fill a quota of how many females to accept, but rather because they saw my potential as a student. Unfortunately it is true that many people don’t receive the best educations growing up and that puts them at a disadvantage but it does not seem fair to discriminate against those who were fortunate enough to go to good high schools. In additon acts of racial discrimination against minorities still happen everyday. In a study done results showed that even if race is not listed, schools will judge people based off of ethinic sounding names. It is definitely a complex issue and achieving a level of completely unbiased admissions to college will be difficutl due to unfortunate harmful sterotypes but if we want equality we have to start by treating everyone equally.

G.T.L – Glorifying a Tumultuous Lifestyle

Posted on by
3

The first installment of the blog will focus on what has become known as a classic: Jersey Shore. What started as an idea to bring together eight overly tan, self-absorbed, Italian beach-goers, has become an absolute phenomenon, complete with own verbiage and style. The majority of the show focuses on the night life of the house residents, when everyone in the house (even the guys) style their hair and spend hours getting dressed. They then proceed to go out to various clubs to drink, dance, and canoodle with the opposite sex to put it lightly. And of course there is drama in the house, whether it is over girls, boys, trash-talking, or just a general need to claw at each other’s hair extensions, the gang of loud mouth “guiedos” is never afraid to voice their opinions.

 I have to admit; I’m a fan. I find watching these orange, gorilla, juiceheads to be both hilarious and entertaining. And while it may seem like harmless trashy television, when you actually stop to think about what the show is promoting, perhaps it is good thing the shore is no more. First off, did you know that Pauly and Mike are both over the age of thirty? Going out all night and making mistakes may seem cute and normal for people in their early twenties, but at age thirty this lifestyle may be “too young for you bro.” Second, the amount of alcohol the show features them consuming on a nightly bases is both unhealthy and risky, not to mention the sexual conquest many of the members partake in. Overall the show presents itself as a house full of young attractive people looking for a good time, but the reality of the situation is that the show glorifies a dangerous, irresponsible lifestyle and by turning the cast into full blown celebrities it makes it seem like an acceptable lifestyle. I ask you, would you want to see your child grow up idealizing Snookie?