Worldwise is a set of events sponsored by the ARHU department. Our next major event is going to be February 24th and it is going to be a set of presentations on ENERGY.

Check out the website for more details and send in a proposal!

http://www.worldwise.umd.edu/subpage_proposal.html

It has come to my attention that some students don’t do all of their course readings. I don’t know what to say about this other than I’m completely taken aback by the concept. Luckily, (and the sarcasm stops here), we have Nancy Bunge to tell us how to work through this crisis of education. Make the texts harder!

A statistic is floating around that says that only 26 percent of students do their course readings and the basic argument that spawns from this is that we are living in a new age and today’s students don’t want to engage difficult texts when there are so many other shiny exciting ways to learn. With tools like Google and streaming media and all that jazz, who wants to curl up in a corner and read?

Nancy says that’s all bologne and I have to say I agree with her.

Here are a few choice quotes from her blog:

“My classroom experiences suggest that blaming university students for this depressing development makes little sense — and not only because faculty members have the power to challenge students’ self-destructive behavior. I’ve discovered that a sizable number of my students enjoy engaging hard books. When I ask them why, they give the reasons that researchers are beginning to validate: Students believe that complex reading nourishes their brains, and they find the experience satisfying. Or, as one of my students put it, “The books were tough but made me think.”

and:

“The students recognize the same thing as those who worry about the study by the National Endowment for the Arts documenting declining reading skills. Despite their affection for visual media and technology, my students realize that if they do not grapple with difficult, abstract texts, they will miss an important dimension of human learning and thinking. As one student wrote: “I like a challenge when I am trying to learn. Putting in more effort yields better results.”"

It’s not the quantity of the books that we read (although the more the merrier), but the quality of the book and the voracity with which we engage it. Only 26% of students do their course readings because only 26% of readings are of the level that they require close reading to understand the point and talk about them intelligently in class or in an essay.

I’ve been in courses that fail to teach me much because the readings were too easy. And to be fair I’ve also been in a course that fell apart because the readings were very difficult. However, I feel that the course failed because the students were not prepped appropriately. They assumed that it was going to be just another course that they could do a little bit of the reading an hour before class and coast on through. But by the time the students realized that these texts required a special level of engagement they had either soured on the course or were unable to catch up.

Another piece of advice that I have is to avoid easing students into difficult texts by progressing from easy texts to hard ones. Slam us right away with the hard ones so we can get a handle on the it while we are still figuring out how much energy we need to put into each course. Then you can ease up and let us apply the concepts to some more readable texts.

The moral of the story is that most students want to read difficult texts that change the way they see the world. Just be sure to wake them up when you assign one.

Am I wrong? Comment and let me know!

Hey all, I hope you had a good weekend! I know the semester is heating up for most people, exams and essays are starting to bear down on us in panic inducing numbers. But, if you can find the time there is going to be a great event put on by the English Undergraduate Association this Thursday at 5pm in room 1111 Susquehanna. You may have seen the fliers floating around Susquehanna, they are the ones with the big picture of a Nazi book burning titled “BOOKS, What are they good for! Absolutely nothing?”

Anyways, the event is part of our “Why Study Lit?” series and it is going to be a casual panel discussion featuring professors Linda Macri, Vivian Salgado and Gerald Maa. The panel is going to focus on discovering the relevancy of the representation of war in literature. As in, what effect, if any, does literature have on shaping our culture’s perspective on war? And does the resulting change effect policy? And if so, how?

• Professor Linda Macri is teaching a course this semester on war and the graphic novel. Examining how war is represented in comics and graphic novels will bring a unique dynamic to the panel. She also has a strong background in rhetoric as it pertains to fiction.
• Professor Vivianne Salgado is a native of Chile, and studied fiction for four years with Pia Barros at Ergo Sum, one of the most prolific literary workshops during Pinochet’s dictatorship. She is also the assistant director of the Jiminez-Porter Writer’s House.
• Gerald Maa is a graduate student at the University of Maryland who also teaches poetry and has received many awards for his creative writing. Maa has also developed a cult following of students who think he’s the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps you should come and find out why!

There will be food and drinks. The details, once again, are Thursday, October 9th at 5PM in room 1111 Susquehanna.

Harvard recently hosted its Ig nobel prizes in which they present awards to the most bizarre research projects recently completed in academica. I especially like the literature winner, David Sims, who wrote a study called “You Bastard: A Narrative Exploration of the Experience of Indignation within Organizations.“

I was equally as happy to discover that economists from the University of Mexico were able to, despite hours of grueling work, persevere and discover that “a professional lap dancer’s ovulatory cycle affects her tip earnings.” I was about to change my major until I found out that the research was conducted via a work-journal on an online web-site.

If you want to find out the rest of the winners The Chronicle has an article that includes links to the particular journals that published the Ig Nobel studies.

But, if you can’t access The Chronicle’s article, you can find one sans citations at network world

I would also like to give a nod here to Penn State Professor/Blogger Michael Berube for making me aware of what has since been my favorite subtitled essay of all time:

“Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: the rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap.”

Have a good weekend everyone!

A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education covered the story of a business professor facing federal charges for intercepting the e-mail of a student he was having an intimate relationship with for over eight months. The student is also pursuing a civil suit against both the professor and the university. The university has suspended the professor until the matter is settled. This incident reminded me of another article I read at the Dankprofessor’s Blog in which he cited an incredibly provocative essay by feminist bell hooks on erotic student/faculty relationships.

It was interesting to me that almost all of the comments in the Chronicle article were directly opposed to the thesis of bell hooks’ essay. The very first comment by Susan set the tone:

“Okay, boys—I know you will disagree, but here goes: a professor ( in a position of power) should not be copulating with their students. This behavior costs organizations many millions of dollars each year. Look where it leads one—now poor Stephan Gladuwacked is going to do a little time away from the public. All because he couldn’t control himself and discern right from wrong. Leave your students alone, already. Go find someone your own age and quit with the pedophilic tendencies.”

The last sentence struck me as quite out of tune with the situation. I don’t think that “pedophilic tendancies” is appropriate for a situation involving a 27 year old graduate student and a man in his early 30’s. That aside though, her argument is probably the one held by the majority and is not out of touch with the reality of the perils of such a situation. However, bell hooks keeps whispering in my ear with statements like:

“The vast majority of women who are heterosexual in this society are likely to be in intimate relations with men at some point in their lives who have greater status and power, however relative, given the nature of capitalism and patriarchy. Clearly, it is more important to learn ways to be “just” in situations where there is a power imbalance, rather than to assume that exploitation and abuse are the “natural” outcome of all such encounters.”

and:

“Some folks oppose faculty/student erotic bonding because they say it creates a climate of favoritism that can be deeply disruptive. In actuality, any intimate bonding between a professor and a student is a potential context for favoritism, whether or not that intimacy is erotic. Favoritism often surfaces in the classroom and has nothing to do with desire.”

Her argument is much more complex than what I can copy and paste here, so I recommend following the link and reading her entire essay. When you finish with that, I want to know. Do you think it is okay for a university to prohibit faculty/student relationships? Or, is it something that should be discouraged, encouraged, or ignored?