Wikis

College Pranks

Famous Chapman Alumni

Cheap Chapman

Students in Need of Cool Teachers

After watching the Blogging Heads video and reading a few responses to the same segment I touched on, I found that many students in our own classroom would agree that a cool teacher is necessary for a student’s academic success in school. However, the definition of what makes a cool teacher is still in the air. It appears that students want to be taught by teachers who understand their students and their students’ academic needs.

In his essay, Colby Suder states that “There should be a balance of course criteria and simply just being a person. By that I mean, they shouldn't put themselves on a pedestal and be superior to the class; they should lighten up.” Students do not want to be preached and lectured by teachers while in class, but want teachers who seem to be on their level as opposed to being taught by a talking textbook. The more human the teacher is, the better it is for their students to be able to handle their teaching style. William Deresiewicz explains that he does preach from time to time in his classes but also tells jokes so that students can see that there is more to him than the academics he is responsible for teaching. This is a great strategy for teachers because its works for both the student and teacher’s benefit and relationships.

In Kyle Miyamoto’s opening paragraph of his essay, he explains that teachers need to be in the student’s shoes in order to understand their needs. He says, “Teachers should take the time to be in the students’ shoes. Figure out the new fads or what most teenagers like doing. Mark Edmundson explains from experience ‘If you wanted to understand students you must figure out the major motive of technology.’ Knowing what has an influence on a specific student or students in general, the teacher can develop the best method of teaching their students.” This way, teachers will know what kinds of things surround modern students’ lives and can have better interactions with them. With a vast selection of electronics in today’s modern world, modern students prefer modern ways of teaching. The old fashion style of teaching from the textbook will drive many of us college students insane if we have to sit through three-hour lectures everyday and have to put up with the same class everyday.

Being a “cool” teacher does not necessarily mean that the teacher should be completely relaxed about all classroom activity but more so acting in a certain manner where students feel comfortable interacting with their teacher.

Pauline Slakey said, “My opinion on the matter is that teachers should try to find a medium between keeping a high level of professionalism and still keeping the class somewhat entertaining and interesting by finding ways to relate to the students. In relating to the students I do not mean turning to student behavior, but rather relating to the human aspect of each individual. Teachers should remember that they are teaching to other human beings with feelings and emotions, and learning a list of facts without understanding ways of being able to relate and make sense of this data, can be rather dull and uninteresting.”

Here, she makes explains that teachers can still be professional and very serious about teaching and academics but can still act in an understanding and comforting manner. This shows that students are accepting of the professionalism and seriousness of most college professors but always courage them to show a more relaxed common personality. In these times, uptight college professors who demand much time and effort from their students will not have much success in receiving good feedback in surveys evaluating their performance. In the end, students and teachers alike benefit from serious academic work as well as good and likable personalities.

The Nitty Gritty on Being a Cool Teacher

In the Blogging Heads video, professor William Deresiewicz from Yale University and Marc Edmunson from the University of Virginia discuss their stance on what professional teaching should be like at the university level. In his New York Times Magazine article, Marc Edmunson states that he believes that teachers should not try to be cool in the classroom and strictly stick to educating their students. In response, William Deresiewicz says that a teacher should establish a good connection with their students in order for them to be fully immerged in the classroom setting. Deresiewicz’s stance on how teachers should act at school is a valid point because students should be able to have a likable person to look up to. Teachers with neutral personalities do not receive enough gratitude from their students if they do not establish a good relationship with them.

At the beginning of the video, William Deresiewicz summarizes Marc Edmunson’s article by saying that “we as teachers need to resist the temptation to be cool, because the job of the teacher is, in a sense, to be uncool; not to model the conventional behavior that students are already invested in emulating, but rather to be ourselves.” Here, Edmunson tries to validate the point that university level teachers’ main priority is to educate students as opposed to trying to have impressive personalities or become friends with students. However, the question of what makes a “cool” teacher arises. In a sense, Edmunson’s stance on this topic has its valid points. Teachers should not be held responsible for whether or not they are liked by students but merely should be expected to teach and educate them. However, when looked at from a student’s perspective, a student will most likely want to have an approachable and caring professor whom they will feel comfortable to be around.

Students in college have many expectations from teachers. As a result, these expectations can weigh down on them causing stress and intimidation. Teachers with high expectations and neutral personalities add to this stress, causing the student be intimidated by them and not want to establish any kind of relationship with them. A student will not look forward to going to class with dull professors who merely lecture as opposed to a teacher who engages everyone into the classroom discussion. Also, teachers with a neutral personality will make it harder for students who want to see them for extra help. A student will most likely want to approach an accessible and understanding professor for help outside the classroom than someone who will put them down for their trouble.

William Deresiewicz explains that while teaching, he makes jokes and analogies for his students to better understand the topics at hand. He likes to keep a cool attitude toward his students for their entertainment as well as to grasp their attention for their benefit. This shows that his style of teaching is not completely neutral, but still does not fit the “cool” label. Being a cool teacher does not call for a teacher to be completely inattentive of their student’s progress but more so means that teachers should have a likable personality so that students are not intimidated or unimpressed by their teachers. Many college students would love to have a completely “cool” teacher that does not care whether or not they show up to class, but students still need that teacher who will make sure they are learning and not slacking off while in the classroom.

A Definitive Difference

This topic brings up an interesting question: Are teachers people, too? We will come back to this later.

The authors of this blog are divided. Specifically, the authors who wrote about the 'cool teachers' subject have different definitions of what a cool teacher is. The writer of the Cool? essay begins with “...no one looks forward to a three hour lecture with a professor that is dull and lacks a complete sense of social ability,” and goes on to say “...they should lighten up... Tell a joke every now and then as to allow the students to relate and want to listen to him/her.” This contributor thinks that a cool teacher is one who tells jokes and makes students laugh at least every once in a while. The argument is that an entertaining teacher is more engaging to a certain extent, and that students will want to listen and may pick up more of what the professor is actually trying to teach instead of just zoning out and watching the clock. In Cool?, a fun teacher is the definition of a cool teacher.

The essay right above this one, Why Professors Should be Shameless Geeks, has a different take on the subject. The first line begins with “My English teacher in high school had a habit of slipping hermaphrodite jokes into our lessons... and when his students fell victim to a hot afternoon and began to lose focus, he’d pretend to slide a piece of chalk into his ear and pull it out his mouth.” This teacher is obviously cool according to the Cool? essay. He even actively and intentionally uses humor to make his students focus, which is exactly what the previous essay argues for. This teacher (revealed to be named Phil) seems to be the perfect example of a 'cool' teacher.

The next part of the quote, however, shows how different this piece's perspective is. “He was the second nerdiest teacher in the school, but everyone agreed: Phil was one of the best teachers they had ever had.” Phil is apparently a nerd, the polar opposite of a cool person. He is funny and childish and has strange interests, which do make him sound like a nerd, and all the students agree on the fact that he is geeky. It can thus be established that Phil is both cool and uncool, which is not really possible.

It seems that we have two authors with exact opposite definitions of the word cool. This is strange, because this word has a specific meaning which is pretty well known, and especially because these different meanings are coming from the same source—the diavlog. The real difference in definition that these writers have is that of what a cool teacher is. The first essays supposes that a cool teacher is fun to listen to, that their method of teaching is funny and attention-grabbing. The second says that a cool teacher is one who is, as a person, not a nerd. It says that teachers who are, as people, nerds are the teachers that use humor to motivate the classroom.

And now we are back to the original question 'Are teachers people, too?' The first essay is based solely on the professor's teaching habit. To them, the teacher is only the person we are presented with in the classroom. It doesn't matter what their personal interests are, we as students see only this side of the educator. Their teaching style defines them in our minds, and so when we say cool teacher, this is what we mean. Why Professors Should be Shameless Geeks, however, sorts teachers as people. If a teacher does goofy things in the classroom and has less than mainstream interests and creates an eccentric persona while teaching, then they are a geek, but because we only interact with their classroom side, they are effective teachers. This essay judges professors as people, first, and I found that most of the essays on this topic have that same angle.

So who is right? The arguments are, obviously, presented different ways. But the first has more merit. For our purposes, we are talking about teachers and how their personalities (in the classroom) relate to how well their students learn. We know them through their mode of tutoring and nothing else. Therefore, not only should we see them as teachers before acquaintances, but we really can't judge their coolness as people through our classroom-only relationship. Certainly, some of their true personality is bound to show through, and I'm sure there are even some professors who don't present a different persona to their pupils. However, I know that all of my most eccentric and humorous teachers were very different the few times I saw them outside of class. This makes sense, because they are talking to a different audience (me versus twenty kids) for different purposes (idle talk versus education), but it doesn't change the fact that the persona that teaches us is the persona that we see and are analyzing in this assignment. We are talking about cool teachers, not cool people.

At least we all agree on one thing. If you want your class to be better students, try being a cool teacher. If you want to be a cool teacher, try being a nerdy person.

Oh, and teachers aren't real people.

What's So Cool About a Teacher?

Are “cool” teachers better teachers? In the bloggingheads diavlog between William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson, the two professors discuss the Academic-Industrial Complex. As part of their debate, they converse about the topic of whether or not professors should be “cool” in the classroom. In this dialogue, William Deresiewicz brings up a major point: teachers need to stop trying to be cool so they can show students how they should be behaving and thinking. However, I don’t think that that is entirely the case.

The main objective of any teacher should be to effectively teach their students so they will retain the information taught to them and apply the concepts. A number of teachers forget this main objective when teaching, which results in a “fun” class that students did not retain any information from. On the other hand, there are a number of teachers that take their work so seriously that students tend to find classes taught by those teachers extremely boring. In such cases, the teacher’s objective of making sure their students learn the material backfires on them and most of their students are so disinterested that they forget the material by the end of the course. An effective teacher should keep the main objective in mind while attempting, if not succeeding, to make their classes interesting enough so that all of their students are paying attention and actually learning.

Pauline Slakey writes in her essay that “the most effect teaching is a the[sic] type of teacher that takes it upon him or herself to apply the information learned to the students lives and to give examples of how he or she as a teacher feels in relation to the material.” While that is an effective form of teaching, it may not be the most successful way of teaching. There are many ways that a teacher can make a class interesting and still teach the required material. A teacher can use media in the classroom that pertains to the subject, or a teacher could get the whole class involved in a big discussion on a topic pertaining to the subject matter. There is a multitude of teaching techniques that make a class more interesting to students; saying one is more effective than the rest may not be correct.

A very important point about an effective teacher is brought up by Dave Soltes in his essay. He talks about an AP US History teacher that was voted “favorite teacher”; she obtained this award because “she was genuinely passionate about the material that she taught and was unwavering in her goals to inspire and challenge her students”. When a teacher attempts to be “cool” by using different techniques they learn from other teachers or at conferences, it may not always work as planned. An effective way of being a successful teacher is to teach like the AP US History teacher Dave Soltes talks about. A teacher can’t just try different techniques to make things more interesting; they need to be the best teacher they can possibly be. Teachers really need to be “genuinely passionate about the material that [they teach] and [be] unwavering in [their] goals to inspire and challenge [their] students”.

William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson also brought up the point of teacher evaluations in their Bloggingheads discussion. They talk about the fact that students evaluate their teachers. They say that if a professor is not seen as cool, they can get fired due to the student evaluations. If a teacher is going to be evaluated, they will most likely stress over the risk of getting fired. This is a lot of unneeded stress on a teacher. A teacher evaluation is an unnecessary attempt at making a university look better. In the Bloggingheads discussion, they talk about a particular case where a teacher got fired simply because her evaluation score was just below the minimum passing score. Universities don’t need to be that critical on teachers. If a small percentage of students don’t like the class, it does not mean that the teacher is doing a bad job at teaching. Universities need to take into account the facts that some students don’t always answer those evaluations truthfully and that students may dislike a teacher because they dislike the subject. There is a multitude of factors that colleges and universities need to take into account when deciding whether or not a teacher should be fired when they look at the students evaluations.

When it all comes down to it, the most important factor of teaching is not whether or not a teacher should be cool. Most importantly, a teacher should make sure that their students learn the required information about the subject they are teaching. Once a teacher knows that they can accomplish that goal, they can then attempt to make their class interesting enough so that all their students pay attention and learn the required material.

Computer Shaped World

How has our world today been shaped by our culture and how has the academic-industrial complex been affected as a result? William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson discuss the complexity of this issue in a video conversation.

The biggest direct impact is without a doubt the computer world and its relationship in and outside the classroom.

According to Amanda Vo, computers have greatly shaped our world today, although not in a good way; rather computers are “the start of the deterioration of our society.” I agree with Vo that computers have placed us in a bubble that have made us more distant from the real world and instead closer to our computers. We do indeed treat our computers as our companions. Without them we would feel lost and scared; we would be forced to deal with the real world much more frequently. Computers give us a chance to hide from the real world and put a safety net around ourselves.

In a sense, our emotions and feelings are shoved down and suppressed through the use of computers. Emotion through a computer is simply a string of words. After learning to deal with emotion through a computer for a while, we become confused as to how to cope with emotion in real life. Thus computers will indeed be the “deterioration” of our society if we continue to use them we way we do. We are mimicking the computer by becoming increasingly less aware of feelings and more capable of multi-tasking. If you are what you eat, why not say, you are what you use? I would not be surprised if one of these days we all just flat out turned into walking computers.

In the working world, the way students have been brought up could be problematic. According to Alex Solano, “college students have made their lives revolve around computers and the internet [and] when they start at a job that isn’t as modern or technology centered, it could turn out disastrous.” Although Solano’s point that college students could potentially be working for older people who have not transitioned to the new era of computers is interesting, I disagree that this would be a major problem mostly impart to the fact that there is a very small percentage of businessmen that are not clued into the computer world.

Nevertheless, it is still possible. “If college students expected their jobs to work as seamlessly as their computers and the internet do, in some cases they might be very disappointed. Both employers and future employees will have to work on getting used to each other, if they live drastically different lifestyles,” Solano writes. This is a valid point, however one could argue that is it a crucial life skill that one must learn in any setting to get along with people with differing lifestyles. In fact this is what college should be aimed to help develop.

Vo mentions an interesting point: we multitask so much that we in fact could be considered less lazy than we think. “We call ourselves lazy, but in all honesty, we do a lot more than we give ourselves credit for.” I personally don’t believe that multitasking could be considered being “less lazy." A man sitting on the couch could be multitasking by clicking a remote while simultaneously being on the phone. This doesn’t exactly qualify as being productive in my opinion; he is just making his time more interesting by doing more than one thing at once.

On the other hand, Vo mentions the dedicated and challenge-seeking individuals at Chapman “who are taking eighteen credits, have two jobs and are taking part in some sort of athletic team, yet still somehow make time to see their friends and—of course—stay attached to their computers.” This is more impressive, and a rather different, more complex form of multi-tasking.

Although one could argue that these individual are often extrinsically motivated and are doing it for the reward of making more money later in life, or praise from parents and friends, this is still a rather impressive way of life. Vo states, “we can’t help it: it’s in our nature to be taking on so much at once.” Is it really our nature to do so much? Did cavemen really crave the need to make a fire while also jumping on one foot and calling out to their friends? Or have we just trained ourselves into thinking that our way of life is normal?

The reality is that it is so far from being “normal” to be so distant from real human interaction. Our bodies are meant to interact with other individuals. Our bodies were not made to sit in front of a computer 24/7 and “bond” with it in a closer way than the other humans that are surrounding us. Although computers are without a doubt useful, they will be our downfall should we treat them as our friends and continue to neglect our real friends as a result.

Furthermore, the introduction of computers into the classroom can result in a lessened attention span of the students as a result lowered learning. Kasondra Carver points out that “college students bring their laptops to class in order to take notes and outline the professor’s presentations. However, some students spend their class time surfing the web instead of taking notes and listening to the lecture.” This again relates to the fact that students today attempt to multitask on a regular basis which is not necessarily helping them to become more efficient in the learning process. Rather, it slows it down and makes teaching much harder for the professor.

Aside from the computer world, Vo also argues that although not enough students stand up for themselves these days there are still a few who do and should be applauded for it: “I’ll admit that our generation may not be the most independent, but I do believe there are a good number of students who do go against the grain and stand up for themselves.”

Standing up for oneself is very crucial to the development of society. Not being independent in one’s thought process and firm with expressing oneself could also potentially lead to the deterioration of society. Voicing one’s opinions and views is crucial in sparking debate; debate leads to an increased amount of discussing and brain power by each party – something that would be high beneficial to the growth of students. The brain is a muscle, and the more it is trained, the more it will grow. Students need to learn to train this muscle more thoroughly by speaking up more and thinking independently of the rest of the population. If everyone thought the same way, how would we ever be able to grow and develop? Ideas spring from debate and questioning.

Austin Page believes that “universities should strive to produce hybrid students. Students who can appreciate and support their schools, while still critiquing it and taking action to voice their opinions and make it better.” This, in a sentence, supports my point and embodies the importance of students standing up for their views and thusly encouraging growth and learning in students.

Overall, our interaction as students through our independence or computer use is largely important in today’s culture.. It is obvious that we should try to decrease our computer use while increasing the amount we voice our opinions. Schools and teachers cannot be blamed in this area: although they can model good behavior, it is entirely up to the students to lessen their addiction to computers and to act independent of the growing monoculture.

JIM DOTI: I WANT YOUR MONEY

At the risk of sounding like Sarah Palin, let’s talk straight:  Jim Doti wants your and/or your parent’s money so he can build giant steel ball structures and $3.3 million fountains.  Chapman University, like all universities, big or small, is a business.  Chapman sells education and degrees, but it must also attract new students, as well as preserve their customer base by fostering supporting alumni and promoting its brand.  

But despite what the floating heads of William Deresiewicz, a former English professor at Yale, and Mark Edmundson, a current professor of English at University of Virginia for the past “quarter of a century,” may say about the selfish intentions of a capital oriented university, your university’s quest for moolah does not ruin your opportunity to receive a quality education.

The Administration oversees the running of the university, and it takes a lot of dough to keep an institution like Chapman running.  There’s groundskeeping, staffing, providing room and board for students, advertisement, fountains, admissions, etcetera.  The list goes on, but frankly, I’m not that interested.  The Adminstration also has a hand, to an extent, in shaping the education of the students.  They can choose majors to offer, and then classes, but for the most part, the administration has little direct contact with the students in the classroom.

William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson’s both agreed in their diavlog that a university, especially Ivy-Leaguers, have an interest to producing successful students, for the sole purpose of earning their donations (and their offspring) a few years down the line.  While this may be true, besides the kind of environment and attitude that the administration sets in regards to education, they don’t get to mold the students they host in this journey of two to four years (or sometimes more) of education.  That responsibility rest’s on the Professors’ shoulders.

Teachers hold the true power in the classroom.  For the sake of this paper, let’s assume that the Professors the Administration hires actually feel compelled to... well, teach; they became professors and joined a university for the sole purpose of imparting knowledge, fostering growth, and playing with students’ squishy grey mounds of nuerons.  

Being compelled Professors, they shape the minds of the youth, they create the lesson plans, they stand at the front lines, in front of the dry erase board, fighting off faulty projectors and pushing students join in on a stimulating conversation.  The Professors don’t spend all their time working on their own papers or research projects; instead they inhabit their office hours, meeting with students after class, whether its to discuss the upcoming midterm or the recent homecoming game.  

The Professors may not be liked by all, falling into the “50/30/10” student approval split, but they will teach outside of the classroom, as well as within.  To overuse a metaphor, the Professors will be the Administration’s hoses inside the classroom, and matches outside.  Inside the classroom, The Professors will will the students with what the Administration intends; students will learn what they came to the University to study: how to balance a corporate checkbook, how to calculate the thrust a rocket needs to reach orbit, or how to negotiate business transactions in German.  

Outside the classroom, however, the Professors will become matches, lighting fires in the students.  Students will come to them, where the real learning will begin and find answers to those burning questions that Jesslyn feels Chapman doesn’t provide, such as “Are you living the good life?” and other cliché, real world questions like that.

There are three major aspects to a University: the Administration, the Professors, and the Students.  Just because you and/or your parents are paying for an education from Chapman, don’t expect Chapman to fill your bucket; you have to actively pursue answers to those big questions and answer them for yourself.

Jesslyn is looking for answers to her big questions in the wrong places.  While I don’t totally agree with her that “Chapman is not exploring the good life with their students,” this is not because “all of Chapman’s classes focus towards a student’s major and not towards anything else.”  Case in point:  I’m a film major.  This is an English class.  Definitely not my field. Chapman is a liberal arts school, not a vocational school.  They have a list of general education requirements, or GE’s, that the Students have to complete in order to guarantee they have a well rounded education upon graduation.

However, this does not mean that liberal arts colleges, as opposed to vocational schools, will answer Jesslyn’s big questions.  According to Jesslyn, Chapman is “giving us the opportunity to become global citizens but not making us worthy global citizens what so ever.”  While she and I agree on this specific statement, I believe this fact supports exactly the opposite of what she intends.  Chapman’s administration can try as they might, but the best they can do is fill us like buckets.  You can’t discover the answers to those big questions or earn that “real world” preparation Jesslyn seeks in bucket form.  You can’t just walk into class and passively download it.  Jesslyn knows how to find those answers, she just may not realize it:

“Chapman does give you the opportunity to take matters into your own hands and learn on your own.  There are many activities and groups to participate in on and off campus.  Chapman has activities such as Greek life, volunteer work, athletics and much more.”

If you share a seat in Jesslyn’s boat, and feel like you Chapman has failed to provide you with those answers to life you paid for, I encourage you to go find them yourself.  That’s what college is for.  Go talk to your professors, discuss a passion, let them light your fire (academically).  Go get involved in a sport, be it varsity, club, or intramural.  Volunteer.  Get involved.  College provides you with an opportunity to dip your toes into “real life” with internships and study abroad experiences so when you do leave with a formal education that will help you succeed in the real world, you have the real world preparation to back it up.  But if you want what you seek, you have to go out and get it yourself.  Don’t expect Chapman or any other university to do it for you.  They can’t.

School is Cool

In the bloggingheads video showing a debate between William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson, it is argued that teachers "need to resist the temptation to be cool, because the job of the teacher is, in a sense, to be uncool; not to model the conventional behavior that students are emulating, but rather to be ourselves." This could be true, but I guess this depends on one’s definition of “cool”. I believe that a teacher must be cool in order to receive and maintain the attention of the class.

As Stated by Colby Suder, “Most would agree when I say no one looks forward to a three hour lecture class with a professor that is dull and lacks a complete sense of social ability.” If polled, I would say that about 95% of college students would agree with this statement. Teachers need to be cool to at least some degree in order to connect with their students on a deeper level. This level of ‘coolness’ varies from teacher to teacher; each teacher has a different way of lightening the mood of the class and therefore making it less boring. I know what class I would not attend on a regular basis if I had the option; the one with the serious professor who always thinks they are right.

Many professors use humor to be ‘cool’. In both Sadie Upwall’s and Colby Suder’s essays it is stated that if a professor is funny it makes them easier to relate to and brings a more relaxed vibe or essence into the classroom. William and Mark seem to think this is wrong. William and Mark would like a strict setting where there is no confusion whom the authority figure is. I agree with Sadie and Colby, students need to be able to relate with their professor, one way of doing so is by professors having a sense of humor. This will work to ease the setting for many students, but you always get the odd student who does not have a sense of humor or does not understand the professor’s sense of humor. So with all things in life, professors have to keep this humor basic and be careful not to offend anyone. One can tell by the tone of the bloggingheads video that neither William nor Mark has a funny bone in their body. Personally,I would not want to sit in a lecture with either William or Mark; if they think professors should be traditional and ‘uncool’, I could only imagine how boring their lectures would be.

Sadie makes and excellent point, “There is a huge difference, however between being cool and taken seriously, and being cool and completely disrespected.” Teacher’s need to know where to draw the line. Although it might be funny for a professor to say something like, “wow, I’m hungover,” this will make a lot of students lose respect for a teacher. No matter how young or attractive the teacher is trying to act like a student to connect with the students is just going to backfire. Trying to be like us does not make you ‘cool’. Students may not always seem like it, but they really do want discipline. We need someone to keep us inline and make us more intelligent.

Some people would argue that a professor does not have to be ‘cool’, it is the professors job to teach not be liked by the student body. A professor is hired mainly on ability and knowledge not on having a great personality. This person would be wrong, although professors are hired on ability they will only keep their position if they cannot get their students to retain the information they have taught. Students are not going to retain knowledge from a professor that does not have a unique way of teaching. Simply reading out of a textbook is not helping. Colby says, “I know I learn much better when I am in a class that has a fun vibe to it.”I think that it is the job of a professor to be ‘cool’.

Both Sadie’s and Colby’s essays make great points on how being ‘cool’ will not only make the professor easier to relate to but also help the students preserve the knowledge being taught. William and Mark need to lighten up, step out of their traditional way of thinking and into the modern world.

No "Geeks" Allowed

There is a difference between lighting a fire and filling the bucket, and as a professor, lighting a fire in your students mind does not come from being a geek in your subject.  This quote from a paper argues that this is how a teacher should get a class to pay attention: “My English teacher in High School…he’d pretend to slide a piece of chalk into his ear and pull it out his mouth.” Sure, acting like a clown in front of your class, doing tricks with chalk may get the bored student to pay attention temporarily, but what about when the magic trick is over?  I definitely agree that a teacher must be enthusiastic about the stuff he is teaching.  However, being a geek all the time is not the right way to show enthusiasm.  The most effective teachers maintain a sense of coolness while showing enthusiasm about the material.  In order to light a fire, to truly get the student interested in the material, a teacher must be someone the student sees as being cool, not someone who acts like a geek.

Acting like a geek and being knowledgeable on the subject are not necessarily one in the same.  Often times, when you think of a geek you think of a smart person, but this is not the definition of a geek I am referring to.  I am talking about intentionally trying to be un-cool by acting like a geek in front of your class.   As a student, I know this tactic of acting silly definitely would not earn the respect of the students and get them interested in the material.  In fact, it would actually lower the respect for the teacher a notch or two.  A better alternative would be a knowledgeable teacher who makes the class interesting because of his or her ability to teach the class “coolly”, without acting ridiculously.

 Lets be clear, I am not saying that professors should try to be cool in the sense that they try to be best friends with the students and use the latest terminology.  Most of the teachers that I have considered “cool” are cool because they have their own unique and interesting style of teaching.  Much of this style of teaching has to do with the professor’s personality.  If a teacher is boring to listen to, there is a good chance he or she is just a boring person, and if this is the case then there is not much that can be done to make the class more interesting.  If your class is so boring that you need to resort to doing chalk tricks in front of the class to get them interested in what you are doing, it is probably time to change up your style, because the students are obviously not interested.  Here is a great example of how to really get your classes attention.

Obviously that is just a more extreme version of the chalk trick in front of the class, but, similarly, it is a temporary solution to get students to pay attention.  It is like watching a clown, you may watch what he’s doing because its funny, but you have no desire to learn what he is doing.  Acting like a geek does nothing to contribute to the actual learning going on in the class.

There is no specific formula that must be met in order to be a “cool” teacher.  In fact, those teachers who are worried about fitting the mold of a “cool” teacher probably do not have what it takes to be a cool teacher.  Also, Students can easily tell when a teacher is trying to be anything but his or her self, and when students sense this, it is basically over for the teacher.  If the teacher is not being himself, he will not have authority over the students because they will not respect him due to his lack of confidence.  Any lack of confidence is especially detrimental to your cause as a professor, because you are the one who is supposed to be an expert in your field, so you must be confident in the material you are presenting.

So, if you are a professor don’t try to be cool, just be yourself, whatever that may be, because that is the most crucial aspect of teaching with a sense of cool.  The students will respect you more for being yourself, and if the teacher has the respect of the class, learning becomes much easier because of the better learning environment.  Most students are at school to learn, so a cool teacher also makes learning and getting through class go as smoothly as possible. They understand how it is to be a student and strive to help their students achieve their goals, which is what is most important.

Lacking In Understanding

Disclaimer: This isn't sincerely meant to offend. If you read this, Austin, I'm just giving my paper some flair. I don't think you're an idiot.

In his rebuttal of the bloggingheads video, titled Babbling Heads, Austin Page goes on a seven-paragraph tirade about how he thinks he knows more than the two incredibly qualified professors from the video. Clearly, his credentials are greater, thus giving him the right to say that these men are wrong. Their hour-long discussion can be dismissed by a single snarky title that implies that these guys are just babbling, like idiots. Mr. Page's response is not only incredibly insolent, but the majority of his essay is based on an incorrect assumption that makes his argument seem incoherent and confused.

A large part of the problem he seems to have with the video seems to be with the usage of the terms “leader” and “thinker”. Page brings up dictionary definitions of the words, as if that is supposed to strike the professors' arguments down. “Ironically”, he says, “the Dictionary's first example of the use of [leader] is 'as in: The leader of a protest or group.' The professor's [sic] definition in no way relates to how a leader is usually defined.” In response to the use of “thinker”, Page asks, “Is this to say that if someone uses their mind to think, it can only mean that they're a cynic, hoping to point out every noticeable flaw?” He claims that terms like “followers and cynics” are much better, again demonstrating his superior knowledge over these esteemed professors. Page is right, in some respects. If you look at the traditional definitions of the words, “leader” and “thinker” are not the most applicable terms to use, and if Page's understanding of the professors' arguments was correct, “followers” and “cynics” would indeed be much better.

However, his lack of understanding makes him wrong. The professors might as well be discussing apple pie for all the relevancy Page's argument has. The traditional definitions debunk the professors' usages, yes. The difference, however, is that they are not using the traditional definitions. The whole point of that entire section is that they flip the norms on their heads. A thinker is generally thought of in a good light, and by changing the meaning, the professors make a profound observation about the nature of our world here in college.

Obviously a thinker isn't the only one who uses their brain; not only would this be a ridiculous suggestion to make, but the professors never implied this in any way, shape, or form. Page suggests that the terms used are not good enough, because the ones chosen should “inform the listener almost immediately what the expression was referring to.” This sentence clearly demonstrates how right I am. The professors were using a subtle argument, one that clearly went right over Austin Page's head. He would prefer a hatchet where they use a scalpel, so it's no wonder he doesn't exactly understand their point.

Page also brings up the argument that the professors seem to be relegating all students to the two groups, with no in-between. If the two of them were suggesting that only thinkers think and only leaders lead, as Page incorrectly argues that they do, then this could be a strong point. Yet, again, it falls flat in the face of reality. To claim this would be as foolish as claiming that only teachers teach and only students learn, when clearly many students teach not only other students but teachers as well. In the same way, thinkers can lead, and leaders can think, but that does not exclude them from their section. Page clearly despises the idea that he could be put into a category; he wants to be a beautiful unique snowflake. This immature and unrealistic attitude blinds him to the reality that yes, people can be put into categories, and can be classified. The “snowflake” mentality needs to stay in kindergarten where it belongs.

One of the biggest problems with this “rebuttal” is that almost the entire paper is held back by a deadly fault; it is guilty of the logical fallacy of false authority. Who is Mr. Page to debunk the theory of these two great men? When did being a college student qualify you to talk like you're an equal to long-time college professors? It's one thing to say you disagree, but to claim they are completely wrong, and then insult them by claiming they are merely “babbling” is another altogether. This is even disregarding the fact that the entire premise of his argument is ridiculous, as it is based on an incorrect assumption.

Page seems to be under the impression that the professors' terms are mutually-exclusive. In other words, he argues against them claiming that leaders “[blindly follow the school]”, and thinkers “[only complain]”. However, again, this is a straw-man argument that he sets up for them, and is an incredible misrepresentation. Whether this is an intentional – though clearly ineffective - tactic or he simply couldn't grasp their concepts is up for debate, but it doesn't change the fact that Austin Page is wrong, and it does a disservice both to those who read his paper and the professors who spawned this argument.

The Cool of Pedagogy

In order to be a successful teacher, he/she must relate with his/her students and form a bond with them. They must be “cool,” meaning that they can combine their teachings with personal experience and with their ability to communicate in a relaxed manner with the class. I agree with Sadie when she stated, “It’s much easier for anyone, let alone students, to recall information when presented in a comfortable casual way, rather than straight out of a textbook using the most complicated words possible”. Students are able to relate to the lesson if it is presented in an understandable manner and explained on a personal level. When the teacher adds this “coolness” into the lecture it allows the students to receive more knowledge from the material being taught. Rather than listening to boring lectures taken straight out of the book because students respond better to an eductator with whom they can relate.

On the other hand, William Deresiewicz says that teachers “need to resist the temptation to be cool, because the job of the teacher is, in a sense, to be uncool; not to model the conventional behavior that students are emulating, but to be ourselves.” I believe that teachers should be themselves because it allows them to add their own personality to their material so that it is not so straightforward and dry. I can agree with Sadie when she said that, “there would be one more adolescent in the classroom”. If a teacher does not present himself in a conventional manner he/she may lose control and become just like a student. They would turn out to be someone who resembles an ignorant and childish person who has nothing to offer to the class. If you wanted to be surrounded by these inanities, then you can go hang out at a local Starbucks. Students want their teacher to be a professional and impart knowledge, perhaps wisdom, and at the least, broaden their horizons.

There are always going to be those teachers who strictly follow the rules word for word. Most of them, in my opinion, are stubborn and inflexible, or they do not want to lose their job. Therefore, they strictly enforce the rules of teaching without humor or interest. With some experience from high school, I have observed that when teachers do not present this “cool” way of teaching, their pupils tend to become less interested in the lectures. Students lose focus because the teachers do not present the lecture with personal day-to-day examples and interactions. If the professors started acting “cool,” then maybe students would be more tuned-in and comprehend the lectures more easily.

If a teacher is too cool and laid back while teaching the material, the students tend to become lazy-minded and often do not participate efficiently in class. The teachers begin to lose the respect of their students. As a result, the pupils will revert to doing anything they can to get by with a passing grade with the least effort possible. In Sadie’s essay, she explains that “there is a huge difference, however between being cool and taken seriously, and being cool and completely disrespected.” If a teacher is cool and follows the guidelines while teaching the material and has a certain technique to inject outside information that relates to the students in some manner, he builds relationships and respect. Relating the material on a personal level advances this process.

But when a teacher slacks off while teaching their material and only is concerned with making the class fun, students begin to think it’s just a game and they can do whatever they want. At this point, the teacher is in danger of losing respect and the students feel that learning is not important. On the other hand the same can be said about “un-cool” teachers. When a teacher is “un-cool”, drones on, or puts students to sleep, he loses the students attention diminishes the value of the material. Some students will take to them because they do not have high expectations while the others will demand more. In my opinion there is a really fine line in terms of suitable behavior from authoritative educators.

During the blogging heads diavlog with William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson, they discussed “student evaluation.” The student evaluation is a very imperative part where administrators evaluate the teacher’s style of teaching. Deresiewicz states that “student evaluation is very important while making hiring and retention decisions for professors.” Students give their feedback on their opinion of the teachers’ lecturing method. Once this is observed by administrators, evaluations are put out showing the percentages of student approval or non-approval. Edmundson states, “if you try to be un-cool it will hurt your evaluation and it might therefore hurt in your teaching.” Basically, if you are not being “cool” while teaching your lectures in class you will suffer from a disappointing evaluation. So in order to be a thriving mediator a teacher must not only focus on teaching the material to their students but also relate it to the outside world.

Want Some Cheese with that Whine?

The author of “the good life” paints an inaccurate hyperbolic picture of Chapman University and other universities across the nation. The essay perfectly embodies a problem that is prevalent in my generation as we enter college, a lack of responsibility. The author defines “the good life” as “how one wants to live spiritually, emotionally, and ethically.” Accepting this definition, I will overwhelmingly concede that Chapman does not have any class called How to Live Your Life 101: The Spiritual, Emotional, and Ethical. However, for a student who is actively seeking guidance in these areas, Chapman has countless resources, both conventional and non-conventional.

            The author makes a false hasty generalization when she proclaims quite confidently the “All of Chapman’s classes focus towards a student’s major and not towards anything else.” While I cannot speak specifically about others, I know that Chapman has a fairly stringent GE requirement that would require anyone who wants a degree to at least dip briefly outside of their intended major. From personal experience, I strongly disagree with this generalization, since my classes this semester include English, Biology, Public Speaking, Chinese, and a freshman course on Atheism.

            But even if we concede to this generalization, the real problem is the assumption that a university has to somehow rigidly structure in time for students to ask “the big questions.” I disagree with the entire argument about leaders and thinkers made in the bloggingheads video on the grounds that you can’t really teach someone to be a freethinker anymore than you can teach them to be creative. For many people, the job of the university is to give you practical knowledge that you would not have had you not pursued a college level education. However, both the blogginghead’s video and the author of “The Good Life” create a false dichotomy of becoming either a school that poses the big questions or something resembling a trade school by not posing them in the classroom. In reality, college for many people is somewhere in the middle because students find the time to answer these big questions in their free time through other activities. A majority of your credits going towards your major would then make logical sense. If you need to be treated by a doctor, you are not really all that concerned with whether or not his college taught him how to live “the good life” but whether or not they rigorously taught him the material that allows him to save your life.

            On that note, the author says, “no matter how much formal education you get this is not a contribution that prepares you for the real world.” While I think direct examples of “real” doctors, in the “real” world, treating “real” patients, somewhat disproves this point, there are also several indirect benefits gained from the vigorous pursuit of a major. Someone who’s workload requires them to put in dozens of hours a week of study and class time will probably have a realistic understanding about the amount of work that faces them after college in the “real” world. But the author of “The Good Life” seems to have a specific opinion about the type of experience that makes you ready for the “real” world. She quotes her roommate as saying, “Our Sorority [sic] teaches us sisterhood and how to watch out for one another, along with being a lady and a useful member of society.” Ah, when I see the sorority girls at a frat party the night before midterms doing “kegstands” and “Tijuana carwashes” I think, this young lady is preparing to become a useful member of society. Now this is a hasty generalization on my part done partially out of jest, but also for hopefully eliciting strong feelings of agreement or disagreement. The fact that people can have such differing opinions on what prepares you for life after college other than academia shows just why asking the big questions and preaching “the good life” cannot be structured in a way that would be useful to the student body as a whole.

            All the opportunities to discover yourself spiritually, emotionally, and ethically exist at Chapman University. Maybe Greek life isn’t for you. No problem. The other day, as I was finishing up laundry, I was interrupted by an outburst of some 30 students who met in a lounge on their own time to play guitar and proclaim, through song, their love of God. Other times, I walk through campus and am handed flyers to meet with other students in our free time to watch films about alternative political candidates or the atrocities occurring in Northern Uganda. And of course, while walking down the sidewalk between the dorms and the cafeteria, it’s hard to ignore the countless posters about new clubs, organizations, or events that have made an appearance on the fence in past months.

            Just because a school isn’t directly telling students how they have to live their life after college does not mean that it isn’t providing all of the right tools for students to make that decision for themselves. The student population then has the fair choice to embrace all, some of, or none of these tools. However, the contention that these tools don’t even exist for students is false. The only way to truly prepare for life after college spiritually, emotionally, and ethically, is to seek your own answers and not wait around for the college to hand them to you. This immature generation has to come of age and realize that in growing up and becoming independent, the only person who can tell you how to live a fulfilling life is you. 

Computers: The Distraction We Hate to Love

It’s inevitable that computers have taken over our lives. Regardless of how you want to look at it, computers have become the ultimate tool utilized by teachers, parents, and most of all, students. We have come to accept the fact that we essentially rely on these machines to the point where we literally need them to function properly. But is this a good thing?

Sure, computers are great. They can help a student keep in touch with their friend, check their email, read up on the latest gossip and take notes on a class lecture all at the same time. Yet how effective are these tasks we’re doing all at the same time? Professor Edmundson from the University of Virginia states that students have become “smart, restless, impatient and like to skate over the surface as quickly as possible.” I would have to agree that as students we are smart, but probably in a different way than what most people would think. In this context, I believe we have become more clever by knowing how to sneak around the system and bring our computers to class, not to take notes like professors think we’re doing, but to surf the Internet and chat with our friends. As KaSondra Carver puts it, “When I have a laptop in front of me, I have the tendency to explore the Internet during class. This leads me to lose the focal point of the lecture being presented.” I’m sure she’s not alone on this one: I’m almost positive that this is the mindset of most, if not all college students today. Computer’s main function to us isn’t to write papers and research information for our next assignment; rather, computers are our friends that help us find new shoes, learn what’s new in Hollywood and communicate with our peers in easier ways than imaginable.

Looking more in depth at Edmundson’s quote, he says that students simply skim over the surface as quickly as we can. Have we really lost our ability to concentrate and actually deeply analyze our assignments? Unfortunately, I would have to agree. Professor Deresiewicz mentions that with our computers, it’s “as if [we] have entered into cyberspace.” We use our computers to escape the reality of the world and enter this bubble where all we do is communicate to others through the wall of technology. Carver goes on to state that for students, “it is as if their eyes are glued straight to the computer screen and the outside world does not concern them.” With computers, we literally enter a world of our own, and anything else occurring around us simply doesn’t matter anymore.

But computers aren’t all bad. As I mentioned before, they’re great in helping students multitask, the most prominent positive feature of computers being the ability to quickly communicate. For me, I know I can easily email my professors if I have a question or need help understanding the material taught in class. I utilize this easy access to obtain the answers and help I need. As Carver states in her essay, “Students take the benefits of this source and use it to receive a better understanding in class and getting help on a personal or educational matter.” What would I do if I had a question on an important essay due the following day and I didn’t have a way to communicate to my professor without getting immediate feedback? Simply put, I would most likely mistakenly write the essay incorrectly and get a poor grade. But because I can so easily talk to my professors (or even friends who are in the same class) and receive their input incredibly quickly through my computer, I now do not need to worry about this frightening possibility.

Sure, we bond with our computers as Edmundson puts it, but is this so terrible? Don’t get me wrong: becoming completely attached to a computer isn’t a good thing in my eyes. Relying solely on one’s computer to shield oneself from the outside world and lose all real contact with others is a sad and upsetting thought. But despite this possibility, I feel computers are actually great ways to better our communication with others, increase our ability to access information and utilize our skills at multitasking. Edmundson and Deresiewicz make computers out to be these awful pieces of technology that have ruined the student culture, but did they not realize that they’re using computers to put their video blog online and to even communicate with each other? How would they have even been able to put this video up without the help of a computer? Of course, they aren’t students, but they still contradicted themselves in this small act.

Furthermore, what Edmundson and Deresiewicz fail to mention is the fact that nearly every generation has had this sort of “distraction” similar to the effects of computers today. Merely 35 years ago was the time of rock and roll and the hippie movement, ideas that adults couldn’t bare to stand. This was also most likely around the time Edmundson and Deresiewicz probably got involved in these movements as well, thus further contradicting themselves. They’re getting upset that our generation is succumbing to the effects of computers, yet they fail to realize they were in our exact same position at one point in their lives as well.

Carver mentions that computers “can be an advantage to utilize in college,” and these quick forms of communication and sending of information are only two of the multitude of uses computers have. Though I do believe our reliance on computers is a bit strong, I know that these machines are much more useful and beneficial than Edmundson and Deresiewicz give them credit for.

Do Universities Provide "The Good Life"?

“The good life” essay attempts to make an agreement with William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson’s discussion on universities’ and the lack of enriched education, using Chapman University as the prime example. Many of the paragraphs are contradictory, vague, and do not support the argument stated in the thesis. After reading the essay, the reader is left confused; the author is unclear in whether she feels universities are capable of providing a well-rounded education or if they are all inept, “corporate” universities.

The first paragraph dismisses all Ivy League schools straight off, asserting “[Ivy Leagues] are not taking an active role in preparing their students to be active members of society”. The rest of the essay continues without any mention of the Ivy Leagues and gives no support to the previous claim. After completely dismissing large Ivy League schools, the author contends that smaller, private campuses like Chapman University “are a little more active but still not as much as one would like to see”. This statement is contradicted many times throughout the essay. “The good life” is too-vague a phrase and the author struggles to make a strong connection between the universities and their effectiveness to provide “the good life”. The essay would be more concise had the writer referred more often to the ideas William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson established in their discussion. The notion that students in college are products of a system that encourages them to pursue prestige admissions and lucrative jobs rather than a stimulating education has a lot of evidence to support it. Instead, the writer tends to be unconvincing in the portrayal of this idea.

The example of religious private schools as a contributor of an in-depth education makes sense, as religious schools tend to have mandatory religion classes that may provide strength in a student’s spirituality. Even though the author felt connected to the teachers at the religious university, there are many examples of students who feel just as connected to their teachers at small, secular universities. Religion and spirituality may be an aspect of “the good life”, but it does not mean that only religious-based universities can provide an elevating education. The paragraph could have been improved had the writer expanded on William Deresiewicz’s example of how religious schools and old literary societies provided students with access to “the big questions”.

Classes at universities are centered on the subject of the class. The author expects too much when she claims her business classes only focus on business, not “the underlying issue[s] of succeeding at life”. It’s expected that some classes should encourage students to search for the big questions, but the main focus is to teach the analytic and rhetorical skills necessary for success in a particular field. Students should depend on their life experiences and pursue their own thoughts on life rather than depend on their business classes. The writer becomes unclear when she mentions the issue of Chapman teachers getting fired for unacceptable credentials; she declares “these are the teachers that we as students want!”, but does not emphasize what made these particular teachers great. The opportunity to bond with a teacher at Chapman is extremely accessible, if that is an aspect of “the good life” and a great education, then obtaining these things is not impossible.

The author rejects Chapman’s program, giving the ambiguous reason that the school is not “making us worthy global citizens”. The term “worthy citizen” isn’t expanded on, leaving the reader perplexed when she continues to discuss the wide-variety of fine study abroad and internship programs available to Chapman students. “These are the programs that really do teach us to live the good life”, the author states, contradicting the previous idea that Chapman was incapable of providing anything of worth to its students. Greek life, volunteer work, and athletics at Chapman are all reflected on positively; the writer claims that they do indeed “teach you morals and values”. The reader is again thrown off-track when the following paragraph snubs Chapman for giving formal education that apparently “is not a contribution that prepares you for the real world”. The author could have supported her thoughts on formal education not being valuable with evidence from the bloggingheads video or other personal examples.

The essay begins with the focus on universities’ lack of asking the “big questions”, but fails to give any evidence or supportive statements. The writer maintains the idea that Chapman does not take an active role in preparing students for “the good life”, but still highlights the helpfulness of the schools’ greek life, volunteer programs, and athletics. If there are so many “amazing things taught in universities”, doesn’t “the good life” become a product of this education?

"Computers: Distraction or Advantage?" is a Distraction.

If one were to read the title of the essay "Computers: Advantage of Distraction?", he or she would probably not have too difficult of a time deciphering its subject and the direction its argument would take. We can only assume that the author would bring up the use of technologically advanced computers, and whether or not it draws attention away from its foremost purpose (most likely taking notes in class). What was found in the essay, however, was a distraction from the argument itself, using repetitive red herring and bandwagon fallacies to the very last paragraph. By the end of the essay, I'm blisteringly aware of the extent that students become engrossed in the cyberworld, but I am not nearly convinced enough to believe that they are, by any means, a distraction in the classroom.

Every paragraph on its own stands as a solid basis for an upcoming and building argument; one that has much potential to prove a very important point. The only problem with the essay is that the argument itself varies from paragraph to paragraph. In the first paragraph, the author makes a point of how technologically advanced our computers have become, and how common they seem to be in our generation. In the beginning of the next paragraph, she states that "It is rare to meet a college student that does not have their own computer", which even though could be considered a hasty generalization fallacy, could strengthen her argument. However, right after this statement, she claims that students "surf the web in class instead of taking notes and listening to the lecture". What we have here are two completely generalized statements contradicting each other in the same paragraph. Though she has left us with a particular impression that computers are a distraction, she has not provided us with enough evidence to prove that they are truly a problem in education. We are then presented with another paragraph further on in the essay that states "it is up to the students to make the right decision and use them wisely". How is the reader supposed to support a particular argument if the author herself can't stick to one?

Hasty generalizations aside, it's hard not to notice the amount of red herring fallacies presented in nearly every other paragraph. For instance, in an argument in the 5th paragraph, the author references a quote from Professor Mark Edmundson from the University of Virginia where he states "a student's 'Drug of Choice' is a 'triple latte'". First of all, how is this statement relevant to computers? Secondly, how does this argue anything relating to whether or not computers are a distraction or advantage? Later in the paragraph she mentions that students use Starbucks to "tune out the 'outside-world' and become one with cyberspace". It's plausible to use this statement as an argument towards how students lose focus from the real world because of computers, but again, it doesn't even touch on the subject of distractions in the classroom. We see this again in the sixth paragraph, where she quotes a professor from Yale University (without even naming the professor directly) saying "students bond with their computer". The author herself states "with today's technology, students do not have to sacrifice the looks of their laptops for the advanced programs". The reader at this point has just read that not only do students lose themselves in "cyberworld", but they also can have cute computer models that they can "bond" with. Unsure how to process these two contradicting facts, the reader decides on remaining confused on the argument, and continues reading. Though the author does hint at a particular argument at certain points, her credibility is dampened with her lack of relevance and coherent structure throughout the essay. I would recommend leaving out the "triple latte" quotes and stick to the subject at hand from now on.

Computers may be easy targets for a loss of focus, but in the eyes of a bored student, anything can be used as a distraction from boring class material. The question at hand is not whether or not computers are a distraction, but why are students being distracted in the first place? It's easy to assume that computers are the cause, because computers are generally consistent in their use and build. It is much more difficult, however, to take into account the amount of teachers who are not presenting their material in an intriguing and interesting enough manner. If the facts being presented in class are either unclear or completely from the textbook, students are going to have a harder time paying attention (and therefore surf the web on their computers). Not to mention that if a student cares enough about getting a good grade in the class, they will use their computers wisely and efficiently, rather than mess around. As the author and I mentioned before, "It is up to the students to make the right decision and use them wisely".

The Good Life: What About it?

From what I could gather, this essay (The Good Life) makes an attempt at identifying whether or not universities answer students big questions. Also, the author feels as though her university, Chapman, is not including these principles in the curriculum. I think beyond whether or not universities are answering the questions, the concern here should be if they even should try to answer them. Are we supposed to assume from the beginning of the essay that they are?

Universities are all different, which means they would all teach different answers. This initially may seem good, but in the end it's wrong because people are paying for an academic education, not some kind of spiritual guide. It's better for schools to stick to teaching academics, because if they taught issues of morality there would inevitably be bitter disagreements, and the schools could potentially push a political or social agenda forward while claiming that they're simply answering the big questions. 

In the second paragraph, the author states, "Most schools are just there to fill a student’s mind with knowledge and facts, not to get you thinking and make your own decisions about the facts you receive."

The same thing could be said about teaching students about 'big questions.' 

It is just as possible that a university could explain big questions in a way that trains students end up being leaders . Therefore, I don't believe that answering students' big questions is a good example of teaching them how to think for themselves. It's just as much filling their brains with answers as it is academic 'facts.' I certainly agree that universities should prepare students to think for themselves, but answering their big questions will not help. On the contrary, by keeping strictly to academics, students will be able to focus on learning their trade while in school, so that they will be free to experience the answers to their big questions in life outside of school. 

The author  makes a great point in the next paragraph, when she determines that, "Many smaller private schools are religiously based, making them more active in seeing students not only succeed in their major but also to succeed in all aspects of their life." She is right in saying that since private schools are religiously based, they help students succeed in other areas of life. But the point is that those schools teach according to religious doctrine, therefore they have a specific way to answer questions, based on the teachings of a church. Does this mean that all schools should be private schools? No. But if they aren't, then they shouldn't bother to try an answer the big questions. 

The major dispute I have with this essay is the fact that it is about how Chapman doesn't do enough to answer the big questions, yet she lists several reasons how Chapman does give opportunities to lead better lives, but doesn't explain why they aren't good enough to give the school a good name in that area. she says, "Chapman does give you the opportunity to take matters into your own hands and learn on your own. There are many activities and groups to participate in on and off campus. Chapman has activities such as Greek life, volunteer work, athletics and much more. Many of my friends are part of sororities which teach you morals and values. My roommate says, 'Our Sorority teaches us sisterhood and how to watch out for one another, along with being a lady and a useful member of society.'"

So my question is, what about this is not answering big questions? Sisterhood, watching out for one another, and being a useful member of society all sound like traits that I would associate with living the good life. She goes on to explain, 

"Furthermore, Chapman would like to think they are preparing us to become global citizens. They are giving us the opportunity to become global citizens but not making us worthy global citizens what so ever. They give us the opportunity to participate in programs such as traveling abroad and internships. These are the programs that really do teach us to live the good life. These internships teach us to become more active in our society and get us to focus on what our morals and ethics really are. "

Again, these are all positive opportunities given by Chapman to its students. If they so clearly explain to students, "[how] to become more active in society," and "get us to focus on what our morals and ethics really are," then what more could you ask for from a college, in terms of being taught how to live the good life? 

It seems perfectly clear that while Chapman may not necessarily devote classes to topics regarding 'the good life,' or 'how to answer the Big Question,' they offer many other ways to contribute positively to society. This also returns to the question of whether or not schools should bother to create spiritual and moral environments for students. Because if people like this author can see how the university really does affect students personal lives, but still manage to complain about it not answering the big questions, what are they still looking for? 

The activities listed in the previous paragraphs that Chapman provides, is as close to answering the big questions as I believe is necessary. If they tried any harder, it would result in a very forced atmosphere, where all the students are taught to live the same way, and any kind of individual deduction or interpretation is stripped away. 

Logical Fallacies

Fallacy One.
Fallacy Two. 3:44
Fallacy Three. :30
Fallacy Four.
Fallacy Five.
Fallacy Six.
Fallacy Seven.
Fallacy Eight. 1:45
Fallacy Nine.
Fallacy Ten. 1:50
Fallacy Eleven.
Fallacy Twelve. 26:31

To Be or Not To Be? (Cool, that is)

When being judged by coworkers or parents, one might be considered to be a great teacher solely for having extensive knowledge on the subject matter taught in the classroom. They keep the class in order, stay on schedule, and take everything very seriously. Perhaps this is considered great when you read the definition directly from the book, but students who are in the classroom with such people might say otherwise. If a teacher follows the school policy strictly and reads directly from a textbook, with no personal incorporation into his or her teachings, students are bound to have a harder time focusing and staying interested in class. Though being "cool" certainly isn't a good enough reason to be hired, whether or not a teacher is personable enough to interact well with a particular generation of students is definitely to be taken into account.

In the bloggingheads diavlog between William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson, it is argued that teachers "need to resist the temptation to be cool, because the job of the teacher is, in a sense, to be uncool; not to model the conventional behavior that students are emulating, but to be ourselves." It is fully understood that if a teacher were to exhibit this conventional behavior, there would just be one more adolescent in the classroom. It is always important for a teacher to maintain some degree of authority to keep students in line. However, if a teacher were to be his or her own self in the classroom and made a few students laugh, becoming "cool" in the process, wouldn't that make this statement self-contradictory? It seems almost ridiculous for a person to change from being "cool" to "uncool" in order to ensure an amount of respect. It would make much more sense if this "coolness" could be used as a way to interact with the students on a much more comprehensive level, where concepts and ideas could be conveyed in ways that are easier to understand and remember.

There is a huge difference, however between being cool and taken seriously, and being cool and completely disrespected. This is something one must be aware of at all times when teaching, because if they were to use the incorrect methods, they would end up with a group of students no better off than when they entered the classroom. A teacher may be as cool as he or she likes, but if authority and a certain set of guidelines are not enforced, there will be no motivation to finish the work. It would be egotistical and damaging to the student if the teacher put "coolness" as a top priority over teaching.

In most cases, however, students generally have low expectations of cool when it comes to teachers (this is the case with most of their authority figures). Naturally, if a teacher and a student tell the same joke, it's going to sound a lot funnier coming from the teacher, simply because it's unexpected. Because it is unexpected, students will become more interested in what the teacher has to say. If teachers were to use this to their advantage, they could mix humor or personal experience with the subject being taught, and therefore make it much easier for students to remember. It's much easier for anyone, let alone students, to recall information when presented in a comfortable casual way, rather than straight out of a textbook using the most complicated words possible. Anybody, even a high school student, could read information out of a book to a group of people. The role of the teacher is much more difficult and important to grasp, and school's should take the hiring process more seriously.

Unfortunately, nobody's perfect, and this applies to teachers, as well. Not every student is going to be pleased by the eccentricities of a loved professor, or find it easier to stay on task when a pop culture reference is blended with a difficult concept. According to Professor Edmundson, "There are about 10% who don't like the professor at all". It's much easier to focus on that 10% instead of the 90% who were either pleased with or didn't mind the teachings of the professor. If anything, a student disagreeing with a professor's personality or quirks would incline a student to search for reasons to disagree with him, and therefore pay even more attention than the rest of the classmates.

Education is an amazing luxury, and students tend to forget that when it is presented unenthusiastically and without any sort of interest from its presenter. In order to create an amount of interest that will produce the most success, we need to have teachers who can present such a luxury in a way that students can appreciate, so its importance is not forgotten. If a teacher can do so in such a way that keeps students interested through a few nerdy jokes, then who is the administration to stop them?

Why Professors Should be Shameless Geeks

My English teacher in high school had a habit of slipping hermaphrodite jokes into our lessons.  He had an infatuation for Gatsby and Galactica, co-wrote a paper on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and when his students fell victim to a hot afternoon and began to lose focus, he’d pretend to slide a piece of chalk into his ear and pull it out his mouth.  He was the second nerdiest teacher in the school, but everyone agreed: Phil was one of the best teachers they had ever had.  A professor has on obligation to embrace “uncoolness,” to geek out in their lessons, to share their passion, and hook their students.  A valued college education comes not from the professor in the classroom, but the mentor in the office.

Educational institutions seem to have a habit of promoting generic traits that they promise to magically stamp upon the students that pass through their gates.  I went to an elementary/middle school that heavily promoted teaching “Diversity” to all of it’s 800 white, upper-middle class students.  My high school heavily boasted open discussion of ethics and morality, yet had a habit of letting students on risk of expulsion off the hook when their parents promised checks and/or letters from their lawyer.

Chapman University seems to value this ideal of a “Global Citizen,” maybe hoping one day to be a respectable Ivy-League school with an alum base of Albert Schweitzers.  Chapman may want to believe that they create thinkers, when they graduate, but they don’t realize that you can’t force feed Global Citizenship, Leadership, Critical Thinking and other admissions pamphlet values into a student through midterms and essays.  Students must discover their own path.

Leave the administration out of the equation; college is about the student and the professor.  But responsibilities lie in both hands.  The student should ask “the big questions” as their often expected to in college and search for “deeper meaning” in themselves, etc.

But what about the role of the professors? They’re the one’s who should hold responsibility for the outcome of their students, not the administration.  Professors have the charge of shaping their students minds, not just through the lesson plan, but outside as well, making sure that the students leave not just the classroom, but the gates of the university as the well-rounded thinker you expect with a college education.  

A good professor doesn’t teach; he inspires. In order for a student to get the most out of the college experience, he has to step outside the classroom, and it’s the role of the professor to coax the student beyond what he’s obligated to do, meaning the assignments, the essays, the reading, and help the student find a true interest in the subject.

As a professor, the initial instinct to relate with a student on this level might be to try and adapt to them, to learn about their world, to show them that you aren’t that different from them.  Some professors will try to be cool, toThis path only cheats the student out of what they should get out of their college experience.  Many students grow up in consistent environment for the first eighteen years of their life.  They’re primarily subject to the influences of their parents, their friends, the area where they grow up.  It’s a relatively small circle.  When they reach college, their suddenly hit with different views and opinions from people from their own different circles.  Not only do they clash with their classmates views but also those of great philosophers, economists, reporters, and professors.  It’s the role of the professor to be different, to guide and introduce the student to these alternative ways of thinking.  If the professor just adapts to the student to try to be relatable, the professor cheats the student out of exploring new ideas.

In fact, the professor ought to do just the opposite.  Don’t try to be cool, don’t try to relate to the students.  Don’t conform to what they expect.

Be a geek.

Geek out and obsess over your field.  Share your passion with your students and get them hooked.  Throw something new into their lives.  They’ll come to you with questions.  The more passion and enthusiasm you show, the more you’ll excite them to come up to you after class and strike up a discussion, swing by your office during office hours to strike up a debate, or meet you for coffee two years after they graduate.

Chapman has recently started hiring a fair amount of faculty based on the awards they’ve earned and popularity they’ve garnered.  Many students and other members of the community though have raised the concern that the administration hired these professors not with teaching in mind, but research and scholastic prestige.  Many students doubt that these new Nobel Prize winning professors will be even slightly invested in the students.  If Chapman wants to create the “Global Citizens,” the thinkers, they dream of producing, they need to hire faculty who care about students, who can challenge the students, and not be afraid to geek out.