A Rarity: Watchmen creator Alan Moore interviewed!

Check out this link, comrades:

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ff_moore_qa?currentPage=all

Alan Moore's interview with WIRED magazine on superheroes, Watchmen, comic book-film adaptations, etc. Some very interesting moments...

"Farmer Brown"

Girls on the Wrestling Team?

We began the discussion in class the other day concerning girls wrestling. I think two of the main questions that came up were:
- Should girls be allowed to wrestle (against guys)?
- What stereotypes go into deciding whether or not girls should be allowed to wrestle?

I think I'd like to add one more question: Why do girls choose to wrestle?

I personally have a pretty big issue with girls on wrestling teams. Wrestling is a "fighting" sport where guys pretty much get a chance to use skill to beat up on each other. I don't get why guys wrestle, but I further don't understand why girls wrestle. I don't think that saying girls shouldn't be on the wrestling team is an issue of "equality" or guys being preferred and girls being excluded. I don't think its an issue of stereotype either, that girls are weaker than guys. I hope that we can all see the moral reasons behind girls not wrestling guys. The school system seems to spend enough time encouraging girls and guys to not get too close, but yet they permit girls and guys on the same wrestling mat. That seems like a pretty heavy contradiction to me.

My brothers were both wrestlers and my older brother wrestled a girl once in middle school. The way my mom described it was "it was over fast." We mentioned in class how a guy beating a girl in a wrestling match is a "lose-lose" situation-- if he beats her he is seen as a jerk for beating up a girl, if he loses he's seen as a wimp because he was "beat by a girl." Now, it seems pretty safe to say that the stereotype in these situations is that a guy should be physically capable of beating a girl, but also that a guy should treat a girl kindly. Once a guy is put on the wrestling mat and asked to wrestle a girl he has a mentle battle: "do I do what I've been taught all my life and treat her like a lady, or do I do what my coach has been teaching me all season and treat her like an adversary." This puts the guy in a pretty tough situation in the first place because he really can't "win" no matter what he does. It seems pretty hard to escape stereotypes on the wrestling mat even if we try.

Why would a girl want to wrestle in the first place? I honestly don't know how to answer that. Any ideas? Any thoughts on this topic in general?

Emily T.

Musical Chairs

Yesterday, we were discussing with Farmer Brown seating arrangements, and why his desk must be in the line of sight from the window. That started me thinking about seating arrangements in general.

Does the arrangement of desks in a classroom (where we sit) also influence our thinking and classroom dynamic? We all know the typical seating arrangements: ordered rows, horseshoe style, etc. However, does one mode of seating restrict thinking more than the other, or does seating have nothing to do with it?

For example, for reasons that Farmer Brown explained yesterday, in MHS classrooms the teacher's desks is almost always at the front. Would it change our perspective if his desk was in a back corner, or off to the side somewhere? For example, one of our teachers tends to stand up and teach from the doorway and move around, instead of standing at the front of the classroom. Does that influence our thinking at all?

Similarly, does having a more ordered seating arrangement also limit our thinking? In Spanish class today, for example, we came in to observe that our teacher had shifted from rows to a much more open sprawling horseshoe style. Is that shape more conducive to open discussion? I recall that when arranging desks for Moorestown Model UN, one teacher told us that whichever way the desks ended up after setting up for the UN, we could leave it that away (instead of moving the desks back to their original positions).

After all, sitting in a new place does provide a new perspective on the classroom (whether it's staring into Gollum's gaping eyes day after day or looking out the window).

Thoughts?
-Eric W or Comrade W

Who do we side with?

Today in class we discussed how, despite the fact that people may think they investigate and search for evidence before making accusations against others, they still at times accuse carelessly without much thought. We mentioned our innate tendency to side with the accuser (claiming to be a victim) over the accused (the alleged perpetrator), as well as the various factors or stereotypes that seem to cause this tendency. We have all noted that gender clearly plays a major role here, and that possibly age is another factor. I wish to bring up another factor that I personally feel may have an even greater effect on our thought processes: race.

We considered different situations in which a young woman/man encountered an older man/woman. What if we also included race into the mix? Would we be more likely to "side with" an alleged perpetrator if he/she were Caucasian as opposed to African-American, for instance? If the accuser and the accused were of a different race, would this cause us to reconsider our alliances?

A particular case that provides insight into these questions took place in March of 2006. As you may recall, three Caucasian college students on the Duke lacrosse team were accused of sexual assault by an African-American woman. Eventually after several DNA tests and detailed investigations, authorities determined that the accusation was false and the three accused students were quickly cleared of all charges. Following this incident, some seemed to suggest that had the accused men been African-American and the woman Caucasian, the case would likely have proceeded in a slightly different manner due to stereotypes and biases. I personally agree with this sentiment. What are your thoughts?

(Janet Lee)

The Ambiguity of Language

Something occurred to me today during a car ride home with my parents. Their conversation made me realize just how ambiguous language can be. A bunch of their statements could have been applied to pretty much everything else. Why was a certain word chosen to fit in this certain context? I know we have already decided that there comes a point when the study of semantics is conducted too extensively, but one word sparked my attention: "corruption". Do you all realize how often this word is used? It can describe the government (flashback to AP U.S. History), people, businesses, you name it! So I am taking the liberty to draw a conclusion. The more often a word is put into use, the more trite it becomes, and it is used in a wider variety of contexts. I know this is probably an obvious point to come up with, but from this point I went further. Do we even know what words like "corruption" actually mean? We know it has something to do with unlawful means, but we have come to use it loosely.

Does this expansion of contexts mean that we are losing the essential meaning of the word? I'm interested.

(Sam Maliha)

Happy Dollars

So on Thursday, I went to the Rotary Luncheon and found it to be rather interesting. It was actually like a regular meeting at Interact, except with older people. The meeting ran about an hour long and consisted mostly of announcements of different service opportunities, charity events, etc. These were interesting to hear about, of course, but I really started to pay attention when someone suddenly announced that it was time for 'Happy Dollars.' I had no idea what that was, and I found out that Jen Goldenberg, who was sitting next to me, didn't know either as she asked a nearby Rotary member what exactly a Happy Dollar was. He said that essentially, a person would donate a dollar and share something happy that had happened in their life recently. So as I sat there watching different people giving in Happy Dollars, I couldn't help but think if all this was really necessary.

If someone wanted to contribute some money to the organization, couldn't they just do it directly? If a person wanted to share a story of something happy that happened recently, could they just mention it at their table while they're eating lunch? Also, the Rotary members seem to be fully aware of the fact that people are just donating some small money under the pretext of a Happy Dollar. Is it really necessary to keep making a special time slot in the meeting for the collection of Happy Dollars? Or is it possible that they just do this because it's part of a tradition?

Mary Quien

Entitled to a grade?

February 18, 2009

Student Expectations Seen as Causing Grade Disputes

By MAX ROOSEVELT

Prof. Marshall Grossman has come to expect complaints whenever he returns graded papers in his English classes at the University of Maryland.

“Many students come in with the conviction that they’ve worked hard and deserve a higher mark,” Professor Grossman said. “Some assert that they have never gotten a grade as low as this before.”

He attributes those complaints to his students’ sense of entitlement.

“I tell my classes that if they just do what they are supposed to do and meet the standard requirements, that they will earn a C,” he said. “That is the default grade. They see the default grade as an A.”

A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, found that a third of students surveyed said that they expected B’s just for attending lectures, and 40 percent said they deserved a B for completing the required reading.

“I noticed an increased sense of entitlement in my students and wanted to discover what was causing it” said Ellen Greenberger, the lead author of the study, called “Self-Entitled College Students: Contributions of Personality, Parenting, and Motivational Factors,” which appeared last year in The Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

Professor Greenberger said that the sense of entitlement could be related to increased parental pressure, competition among peers and family members and a heightened sense of achievement anxiety.

Aaron M. Brower, the vice provost for teaching and learning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, offered another theory.

“I think that it stems from their K-12 experiences,” Professor Brower said. “They have become ultra-efficient in test preparation. And this hyper-efficiency has led them to look for a magic formula to get high scores.”

James Hogge, associate dean of the Peabody School of Education at Vanderbilt University, said: “Students often confuse the level of effort with the quality of work. There is a mentality in students that ‘if I work hard, I deserve a high grade.’ “

In line with Dean Hogge’s observation are Professor Greenberger’s test results. Nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed said that if they explained to a professor that they were trying hard, that should be taken into account in their grade.

Jason Greenwood, a senior kinesiology major at the University of Maryland echoed that view.

“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”

“If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” he added. “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.”

Sarah Kinn, a junior English major at the University of Vermont, agreed, saying, “I feel that if I do all of the readings and attend class regularly that I should be able to achieve a grade of at least a B.”

At Vanderbilt, there is an emphasis on what Dean Hogge calls “the locus of control.” The goal is to put the academic burden on the student.

“Instead of getting an A, they make an A,” he said. “Similarly, if they make a lesser grade, it is not the teacher’s fault. Attributing the outcome of a failure to someone else is a common problem.”

Additionally, Dean Hogge said, “professors often try to outline the ‘rules of the game’ in their syllabi,” in an effort to curb haggling over grades.

Professor Brower said professors at Wisconsin emphasized that students must “read for knowledge and write with the goal of exploring ideas.”

This informal mission statement, along with special seminars for freshmen, is intended to help “re-teach students about what education is.”

The seminars are integrated into introductory courses. Examples include the conventional, like a global-warming seminar, and the more obscure, like physics in religion.

The seminars “are meant to help students think differently about their classes and connect them to real life,” Professor Brower said.

He said that if students developed a genuine interest in their field, grades would take a back seat, and holistic and intrinsically motivated learning could take place.

“College students want to be part of a different and better world, but they don’t know how,” he said. “Unless teachers are very intentional with our goals, we play into the system in place.”

I found this article very interesting because it really applies to our attitudes toward grades and it brings up good questions: Are we so focused on what grades we get because of the system in place, or because of ourselves, and isn't it reasonable that we feel entitled to a certain grade for 'x' amount of work?

Sorry this is so long...

(Arvind Kalidindi)