 |
Once coed dormitories became the norm on college campuses, you had to know it was only a matter of time before male and female students were allowed to room together. I guess college administrators felt that sharing floors and bathrooms just wasn't enough to completely destroy gender distinctions.
Here's an excerpt from an MSNBC article one of our readers sent us: In the prim 1950s, college dorms were off-limits to members of the opposite sex. Then came the 1970s, when male and female students started crossing paths in coed dormitories. Now, to the astonishment of some Baby Boomer parents, a growing number of colleges are going even further: coed rooms.
At least two dozen schools, including Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, Oberlin College, Clark University and the California Institute of Technology, allow some or all students to share a room with anyone they choose — including someone of the opposite sex. This spring, as students sign up for next year's room, more schools are following suit, including Stanford University.
What's next? Clothes-optional dorms and classes?
On the next The Boundless Show, guest contributor Suzanne Hadley makes the point that staying overnight with a member of the opposite isn't just about sexual temptation, it's about sharing an intimacy that's reserved for marriage. And the more you do things outside of God's design, the more likely it is that you'll never know its real meaning.
But Ivory Tower elitists don't know or care about stuff like that. And college isn't just about learning anymore. It's about gender blending.
With college admission getting more competitive, you'd expect that colleges would be demanding more of high school graduates. But some prestigious universities seem to be doing the opposite -- they're encouraging students to take the year off. MSN reports: It's called a "gap year." And while it's been a common and popular rite of passage in Australia and the U.K. for decades, the concept is now starting to gain significant steam here in America.
One reason for its rise in popularity, is that the gap year provides a much-needed mental break for kids who have ridden "the academic conveyor belt from preschool all the way to university." Taking a gap year can actually make kids more focused and ready for the rigors of academic life. In fact, Harvard, arguably the most competitive university in the country, believes so much in the gap year that they encourage every student they admit to consider a year off before matriculation. And Princeton has just announced a new program called the "bridge year" that will allow newly admitted students to spend a year performing public service abroad before beginning their freshman year.
Better-prepared students mean better completion rates for colleges. According to the College Board, close to 30 percent of college freshmen don't return for sophomore year. And three out of five students fail to earn a degree within five years.
Those who take a year off may spend the time writing, traveling, serving or working. Have any of you tried the gap year? How did it go?
I'm not an expert in anything. I'm pretty good at playing keyboard in church, editing authors' manuscripts, and making chicken saag, but even in these areas there are people light years ahead of me.
I've been studying issues relevant to singles for years now, and was single for 36 of my 41 years. I may be able to act as a "mentor" to some singles, but the truth is that I'm no expert in this field.
Which leads to this post, and the one I plan to write next.
I just read over at Alex Chediak's blog that 58 percent of U.S. undergrads are women.
Call me a sexist, but my first reaction is to find that disappointing. Call me a sexist, but I believe that in most cases the husband should be the primary income-earner in the family, and that the wife should be free to stay at home with the kids. It follows, logically I think, that more men should be preparing for these income-earning careers by going to college. And that women should be careful not to bring on exorbitant school loan debt that may prohibit them from being able to carry out their dreams to be stay-at-home moms.
Oh, this blog post is so politically incorrect. A chunk of our readers are going to misinterpret what I'm saying, insisting that I believe women should be ignorant and that they are only qualified to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. I'm not saying that. I married a woman with a master's degree, after all. Another chunk of our readers are going to say that I'm subtly characterizing men, who attend college at a rate less than women, as irresponsible gamers who are prolonging their adolescence out of fear of taking on responsibility. I'm not saying that either.
I am saying, though, that I find these stats to be puzzling. Sure, some of the non-college-going men may be attending trade schools or taking on careers that don't require college. And many of the college-attending women may be pursuing lower-cost liberal arts degrees that make them more well-rounded, that give them opportunities to meet their husband, that don't rack up the debt, that equip them to take on jobs while awaiting Mr. Right.
Or perhaps college has become less about education, and more about socializing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
But as a complementarian, rather than an egalitarian, something just doesn't seem right here with three women going to undergrad for every two men.
Can we talk about this puzzling stat? Can we discuss it here on The Line as non-experts without this conversation degenerating into complaints of "feeling offended"?
Math pays, says an article on MSN. According to the winter 2007 salary survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), college students graduating with math- or science-related degrees will earn significantly more than their liberal arts peers. According to the survey, mechanical engineering students graduating in 2007 reported snagging average offers of nearly $54,600. Computer science grads' job offers averaged about $51,070. Accounting grads got offers of about $46,500, while economics majors' offers averaged roughly $47,900. By contrast, liberal arts graduates reported average offers hovering mostly ranging between $30,000 and $35,000. It gets even better for numerically savvy graduates -- they might also have an easier time finding that coveted first job.
In fact, eight of the top 10 degrees in demand are quantitatively based, says the research. Supply and demand are the issues here. Alan Weiss, president of Summit Consulting Group, a firm specializing in management development, says a primary reason math and science graduates earn more out of college is a simple case of supply and demand: "They're much more immediately applicable in a much smaller supply." Students earning associate's and bachelor's degrees in liberal arts disciplines outnumber those in mathematic or scientific fields, according to data from the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics.
There's a silver lining for those of us who are math-impaired. Long-term career success is based more on people skills than a grasp of numbers. Lisa Earle McLeod, columnist and author of Forget Perfect (Penguin/Putnam), agrees that good communication skills are key to long-term career success. "Being the best scientist or engineer might make you the head of the department," she says, "but you have to be a good communicator to be put in charge of large groups of people."
This week Steve considered the role of a college education and cited Phyllis Schlafly's opinion that "College is no Prerequisite for Many New Careers."
Maybe that's a good thing, considering that gaining admission to your college or university of choice is getting harder...way harder. Newsweek reports: For students like Maxine who are applying to college for next fall, that dream is turning out to be frustratingly unobtainable. It turns out the odds of getting into a selective college have never been worse. Why? It's simple demographics. A little less than two decades ago the biggest population bulge in the history of America, the baby boomers, were busy having kids. Now those kids are in junior high school and high school and creating a demographic boomlet all their own.
This spring the largest number of high-school graduates in the history of the country --some 3.32 million -- will don a cap and gown, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Next year, at the peak of the peak, the number of high-school graduates is expected to top 3.33 million. "For many middle- and upper-middle-class kids, the transition from high school to college was never without some obvious stress," says Barmak Nassirian, spokesman for the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. "But now it has become a multiyear nightmare."
The article notes the example of Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va., which received 4,000 applications for 455 seats. And Ball State in Muncie, Ind., saw its applications rise 22 percent last year, receiving 13,000 applications for 3,100 spaces. The trend is good and bad for colleges. College admissions officers are split. On the one hand, they say they don't like being forced to reject so many worthy kids. On the other hand, they're enjoying -- and profiting from -- the attention. As the number of applicants rises, admission becomes increasingly selective. Most parents and students equate selectivity with a quality education, which in turn encourages even more applications and allows colleges to become even more selective.
The downside is the inevitable fallout when the boom ends. I imagine when the children of Generations X and Y reach college age there will be room to spare, and colleges will be clambering for students. The future combination of less young people and the diminished role of college education in workplace success could be lethal to the same universities that are turning away qualified students today.
Not too long ago, Thomas Sowell opined that Too Many Go to College. That column was an echo of what Charles Murray said around this time last year (that Motte blogged about here). On Monday of this week, Phyllis Schlafly wrote that College is no Prerequisite for Many New Careers.
What's up with all this? Are conservative columnists in cahoots to suppress higher education? Or are we starting to see a trend of thoughtful people rethinking the role of higher ed? Consider some of the points Schlafly makes: Ten years ago we were told we really didn't need manufacturing because it can be done more cheaply elsewhere, that auto workers and others should move to information age jobs. But now the information jobs are moving offshore, too, as well as marketing research and even many varieties of innovation. ...
Society has been telling high school students that college is the ticket to get a life, and politicians are pandering to parents' desire for their children to be better educated and so have a higher standard of living. Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., wants the taxpayers to guarantee every kid a college education, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says more education is the means for Americans to compete in a global economy.
But it doesn't make sense for parents to mortgage their homes, or for students to saddle themselves with long-term debt, in order to pay overpriced college tuition to prepare for jobs that no longer exist. Tuition at public universities has risen an unprecedented 51 percent over the past five years.
It's my impression that even if this chorus of conservative commentary on the questionable ROI of a college education was repeated throughout mainstream journalism, you would still see hordes of incoming freshmen hitting campuses looking for college to play a role beyond preparing them for the workplace -- they would be looking to find themselves, to experience a certain rites of passage, to get their first strong taste of independence and lots of other side effects of the college experience. But maybe there's a new generation of young adults who will rethink the price-tag of those existential pursuits and pave an entrepreneurial pathway that looks quite different from the status quo higher ed we've come to know.
What role do you see college playing...for better or worse?
Our fall 2007 Focus on the Family Institute students just graduated. It's very quiet around the office now. Sad.
It's so fun to watch a semester at the Institute progress. When the 88 students first come, no one knows each other and all you hear are the same small-talky questions over and over again: "Where are you from? What school do you go to? What's your major?" We go on a retreat in the mountains the first weekend the students are here, and it's fun to watch relationships slowly begin to form. People begin to recognize one another or figure out common interests. We share our stories, eat meals together, and play volleyball and cards. The bonding begins.
The semester progresses and I daily walk by chatting students in the halls. They share stories of their thought-provoking classes with Del Tackett, the reading they're doing for their family and marriage classes, and the beautiful mountain hikes they did last weekend. Evenings are spent working on homework, chatting with new friends and exploring Colorado Springs.
At the end of the semester, we go on a final retreat and it's amazing to see the difference in the students. They are more confident about what they believe and why they believe it. They are excited to go back and be world changers. And they are grateful for the amazing community they've experienced and the life-long relationships they've formed.
Our fall students have just finished this process. They have been equipped and are ready to go. Our spring semester starts in the middle of January. I'm excited for it to start over again.
The Institute really is a life-changing experience. You should come see for yourself. Our summer 2008 deadline is March 1 and our fall 2008 deadline is April 1. Think about it. It just could be the best decision you ever make.
I only remember two college all-nighters—uh, make that three. One I spent in the journalism house getting out the next issue of the student newspaper. A second I spent trying to memorize 1 Corinthians 12-13 for a final project (I should have chosen the option of writing a 15-page paper instead). And the third I spent compiling a hermeneutics project.
In each situation, I was left with too much to do in a short amount of time. Not sleeping seemed like the only option. My sister-in-law never pulled an all-nighter. The editor before me pulled them regularly (He also drank a lot of diet Coke). MSNBC reports that a new study reveals that those who pull all-nighters get slightly lower grades than those who don't. A survey of 120 students at St. Lawrence University, a small liberal arts college in northern New York, found that students who have never pulled an all-nighter on average have higher grades than those who have. The survey found those who did not study through the night had a grade point average of 3.2 compared to 2.95 for those who have.
Pamela Thacher, the clinical psychologist who conducted the study sees the results as significant: "It's not a big difference, but it's pretty striking," Thacher said. "I am primarily a sleep researcher and I know nobody thinks clearly at 4 in the morning. You think you do, but you can't."
Of course, this was a fairly small study and I can think of exceptions, as I'm sure you can. But the bottom line is sleep is healthy and improves concentration and performance. That's good for me to remember during this busy time of year where I'm tempted to burn the candle on both ends.
If a few serious students are good, wouldn't a huge classroom full of students be even better? Unlikely, says Thomas Sowell in Too Many Go to College. In a day when every 18-year-old feels entitled to a college experience, economics Professor Sowell says what's needed isn't more supply, but more demand.
He writes, Wanting to be in college is not the same as wanting an education. Among the other reasons for wanting to be in college is that it is a social scene with large concentrations of people of the same age and the opposite sex.
It is also a place where immaturity is not the handicap that it can be in other places, ranging from home to the workplace. In college immaturity is the norm, accepted not only by peers but even to a large extent by those in charge.
An academic campus can be a refuge from the realities of the world, not only for students but even for members of the faculty. Max Weber referred to some of his fellow academics as "big children in university chairs."
Many students really are there for a good education. Sowell talks about them, too. But it seems they're at the mercy of the goof-offs, ... the negative effect of students who are not serious can be detrimental to the education of those who are. I found this to be true in each of the five colleges and universities where I taught, as well as in each of the three universities from which I received degrees.
I used to try to get a front row seat on the first day of class. Knowing that most professors made their seating charts based on where we landed on day one, I wanted the incentive to pay attention. Maybe I should have paid more attention not just to where I sat, but next to whom.
I blogged earlier about helicopter parents. A new survey of college students now provides more insight on this trend of highly involved parents: Nearly 40 percent of first-year college students have had a parent or guardian intervene on their behalf to solve a problem at college, according to new research being released Monday. About 13 percent of first-year students said such interventions were frequent.
...
Educators insist there's nothing wrong with parents taking an interest in college life. ... But the term "helicopter parents" has emerged to describe those who go overboard, getting too involved in solving their children's problems, preventing them from learning self-reliance.
Largely, the trend has been tracked anecdotally in news stories about parents doing students' laundry, editing their papers, and even calling the school to complain about roommates or grades. But there's been little hard research.
 Barbara Hofer, a psychologist at Middlebury College in Vermont, prefers to use the term "electronic tether" since the idea of helicopter parents has so much to do with technology innovations. That's consistent with the study's findings:
"Forty years ago, going to college was a 'breaking away' experience," said George Kuh, who directs the National Survey of Student Engagement, a massive annual study of college students that contains the new data.
That's not the case any more, Kuh said. A big part of the reason is cell phones have long since replaced the pay phone down the hall in the dorm.
The report goes on to say that there is an upside to intervening parents: "Their children are more engaged in college life, happier and reporting getting more from the experience."
So, if I'm reading this right, helicopter parents (or whatever you call them) might, for the most part, be an inevitable byproduct of technology advances and may not be harmful in the ways some have implied.
Is that your experience? Do you fall into the camp of being in frequent connection with your parents without seeing their involvement as detrimental to your development?
After this weekend, I know what it feels like to hold the minority opinion. I participated in an acting workshop where it was clear marriage, faithfulness and sexual propriety -- let alone virginity -- were not virtues. Discussing and/or including immorality was presented as the norm -- and even required -- for the acting community. I found myself wondering how all these opinions, many of which I do not hold, became "the norm."
In this New York Times Blog opinion piece, Stanley Fish considers the offering of documentary filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney: Indoctrinate U. "Indoctrinate U"'s thesis is contained in its title. You may think that universities are places where ideas are explored and evaluated in a spirit of objective inquiry. But in fact, Maloney tells us, they are places of indoctrination where a left-leaning faculty teaches every subject, including chemistry and horticulture, through the prism of race, class and gender; where minorities and women are taught that they are victims of oppression; where admissions policies are racially gerrymandered; where identity-based programs reproduce the patterns of segregation that the left supposedly abhors; where students and faculty who speak against the prevailing orthodoxy are ostracized, disciplined and subjected to sensitivity training; where conservative speakers like Ward Connerly are shouted down; where radical speakers like Ward Churchill are welcomed; where speech codes mandate speech that offends no one; where the faculty preaches diversity but is itself starkly homogeneous with respect to political affiliation; where professors regularly use the classroom as a platform for their political views; where students parrot back the views they know their instructors to hold; where course reading lists are heavy on radical texts and light on texts celebrating the Western tradition; where the American flag is held in suspicion; where military recruiting personnel are either treated rudely or barred from campus; where the default assumption is that anything the United States and Israel do is evil.
You can take a breath now. Fish goes on to point out some of red herrings and fake issues that Maloney creates -- for example, biased reading lists (such lists have always been based on instructor preference, not balance of opinions) -- and yet he admits that Maloney's point about professors using the classroom to tout their own political views is valid.
I haven't seen the documentary, but by this account it seems like Maloney may use some cheap tricks to make a true case. Most recognize that universities increasingly have a liberal slant. And in some cases, this influence is oppressive to those who don't share these views. (Remember this discussion about second-year ob-gyn residents at Yale being required to complete eight weeks of rotations at Planned Parenthood clinics?).
It seems though "Indoctrinate U" may be a case of sloppy journalism, its point is certainly not moot. Any environment that fosters one voice while silencing others is oppressive to those with a minority opinion. This should not be the case in a public learning institution.
HT: The Point
"If you are not a member of a church you regularly attend, you may well be going to hell."*
And what if you're not even attending church?
Many of our readers are in college. And many college students drift spiritually, largely because they don't hang out with other Christians or go to church. I'm concerned that some of our readers are backburnering church attendance. Maybe even backburnering being part of InterVarsity or Campus Crusade or Baptist Student Union or one of the other great campus ministries.
The thing is, if you're not going to church, your spiritual life is being hindered. It may very well even die.
Thabiti talks about it. Steve talks about it. Candice talks about it. Matt talks about it. Nathan talks about it. Joshua talks about it. Suzanne talks about it.
And of course, Christ talks about it, calling it his beloved bride. His beloved bride. Surely if he loves the church, we should as well.
Please forgive the brashness of my appeal to you: For the sake of your soul, please find a decent church and at least make it part of your weekend routine.
*A bit hyperbolic, but when Pastor Mark Dever says this, it gets his listeners' attention.
You've probably heard the term "helicopter parents" in the context of parents constantly hovering over their children in college. Maybe you've seen a few. An article in Thursday's Wall Street Journal describes different types of helicopter parents: The Blackhawk Parent: Among the most damaging types, this parent "comes in with guns blazing," demanding action, says Patricia Somers, an associate professor at the University of Texas, Austin.
...
The Toxic Parent: These parents meddle in intrusive ways that imply the student is untrustworthy or ill-equipped. Parents at several schools, Dr. Somers says, obtained their children's log-on information, researched prospective roommates on Facebook, them masqueraded as their children online to request roommate assignments.
...
The Consumer Advocate: College officials tend to dislike these parents, who regard higher education as a consumer transaction and negotiate tirelessly for discounts. Educators say providing an education is more than that and doesn't always mean keeping the customer happy.
...
The Safety Expert: These anxious parents, more numerous since the Virginia Tech shootings, want to know about security plans and lockdown times.
...
The Traffic and Rescue Helicopters: These terms, coined by an official at Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, cover parenting types regarded as benign. The Traffic Helicopter gives advice and guidance but leaves decision-making up to the student. The Rescue Helicopter...rushes in to help with supplies and support in a crisis.
Thoughts?
Research reported in USA Today shows a GPA drop among college students who play video games: First-year students whose roommates brought a video game player to college studied 40 minutes less each day on average, according to a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Those 40 minutes of lost study time translated into first-semester grades that were 0.241 points lower on the 4.0 grade scale.
The study's authors, Todd Stinebrickner, an associate professor of economics at the University of Western Ontario, and his father, Ralph Stinebrickner, a professor of mathematics and computer science at Berea College in Kentucky, were not trying to prove anything about video games. The study sought to determine how much of an effect study efforts have on grades.
The article ends by saying the researchers weren't necessarily saying students had to give up playing video games: He added that he does not think these findings mean students should give up distractions such as video games. In fact, happiness also can be a factor in how well a student does in school.
But the findings could help counselors educate students on the importance and impact of studying.
I didn't play video games in college, but I do remember a season of playing FreeCell in graduate school that definitely cut into my study time. FreeCell is nowhere as compelling as today's video games, but it is more compelling than some of the thick material I was supposed to be studying. Thinking back to some of my studies as an undergrad, I'm pretty sure I would have chosen video games over reading assignments in subjects such as Victorian Literature.
How about you? If you're currently a student who plays video games, would you objectively rate your gaming as 1) making you a less diligent student, 2) having no effect on you as a student or 3) making you a better student?
There's a good chance you've seen the video of the college student whose disruptive exchange with Senator John Kerry yesterday led him to be tasered and handcuffed. In case you haven't, you can view a version of it here; please note that this version of the video has been intentionally edited so as to remove the events that led up to the young man's being arrested.
Because of what I'll call inquisitiveness, I've found myself watching four different videos of the incident, and then going on to read first-hand accounts and commentary.
My personal opinion: It was a publicity stunt -- Andrew Meyers and perhaps some of his friends set out through his combative diatribe to cause a commotion that might result in his making a lot of money in a possible legal settlement.
Michelle Malkin has been documenting the unfolding of this case since it hit the news. Among other things, she has published first-hand accounts from students who were in the room when the fracas broke out.
From an eyewitness account:
There were twomicrophones placed on each side of the aisle. One on my side and the other on Andrew Meyer’s side. Senator Kerry began answering the student’s questions from each aisle. Eventually it was announced that there would only be a few more questions answered. Since Meyer and I were both in the back of each line, it did not seem likely that our questions would be answered.
However, while Senator Kerry was responding to a student’s question, all of a sudden Meyer rushed to the microphone with cops in pursuit. At that point no one knew what was going on. Could he have a gun, a bomb? Immediately, Meyer began yelling into the microphone that he had been waiting in line forever and that Senator Kerry should “spend time to answer everyone’s questions!” Senator Kerry tried to calm the student down by telling him that he would “stay here as long as it takes to get the questions answered.” The police approached Meyer who began taunting them by saying “what! are you going to taser me? are you going to arrest me?!” The police grabbed Meyer, but Senator Kerry asked the police to let him go and that he would answer his question. Senator Kerry finished answering the other student’s question and then proceeded with Meyer. (*This entire scene is not in any video I can find so far. This is why 2 cops are seen right behind Meyer at the start of some videos*).
Meyer rambles for a while, after which Kerry asks him to pose his question. Meyer becomes more agitated, gesturing wildly, and then poses his first question. During his second question, he utters a vulgarity, and so one of the police officers motions for the microphone to be cut. The microphone is cut off during his third question, at which point Meyer grows hostile. The police attempt to restrain Meyer. Meyer fights them off, again taunting them about tasering him. After continued resistance to the police, they in fact did appear to taser him. He left the room in handcuffs.
So why am I making such a big deal out of this? I'm making such a big deal out of this because I've read so many comments from people who don't know the context of the altercation. They're quick to pass judgment on the police officers for "police brutality," not understanding how Meyer had escalated the situation by breaking forum rules, behaving erratically and disruptively, and provoking the police.
Here are some questions I'm left with:
- What did you first think when you saw the video?
- Did you think that a passionate young man was hauled away merely because of his provocative questions, thus infringing on his First Amendment rights?
- And now that you know more of the story, do you think that Meyer intentionally brought this upon himself?
- Is Meyer's outrageous attitude and behavior common on the college campus?
- Why is it that we tend to sympathize with those who are resisting authority?
- And what about the manipulative effect showing a video out of context can have?
- Can you think of any other examples of how taking something out of context can leave you with an impression that's in odds with reality?
- Finally, if you were a police officer present, how would you have brought about civility in the face of escalating incivility?
While scanning my usual blog haunts to find topics, events or news items which I believe may be of interest for our Boundless Line readers, I happened across this one from Mere Comments. It's about an article from an old acquaintance of mine, Kevin Offner, on making the most out of college.
As Mere Comments describes, Kevin is "a veteran of the college campus, and a veteran working with InterVarsity." And though this is more for college freshmen, I believe the advice is worth consideration from all classes.
He begins with the obvious but needed admonition to love Jesus. He writes that your greatest priority is to put yourself in a position where you can hear and respond to the Lord.
Here's how:
- Develop the habit of setting aside time to be alone with the Lord in prayer and Bible study. Of course we can commune with God throughout the day, and we mustn't compartmentalize our lives between the "spiritual" and "secular," but every important relationship needs a regular time of concentrated focus.
- Take the idea of the Sabbath seriously. ... The point here is not legalism, but rather that a habit of intentionally refraining from work is a continual reminder to us of our need for God. Why not keep a day a week (Sunday is a good choice) to worship with others, rest, write snail-mail letters, take long walks, drop in on friends, read fiction or play with children? Spend concentrated time in prayer, reflecting on your last week and preparing for the upcoming week. Keeping a day a week to rest is giving God the first fruits of your time, showing him that you trust him to help you accomplish all he is calling you to do.
Offner also advises to practice instant obedience, to value people, to tell people about Jesus, and to study hard. And on this last point, study hard, he says Christians have to do more than the usual course work because they have the responsibility to filter everything they've heard through a biblical worldview. A Christian student has to work extra hard. Not only must you do all the mandatory reading and writing required of all your colleagues, but you must further reflect, with a Christian mind, about the various truth claims which are being made. How is what you’re learning compatible with a Christian world view? What bearing does your loyalty to Jesus play in the way you think about issues or moral dilemmas presented in class?
For more help examining various truth claims in the college environment from a Christian worldview, check out TrueU.org. Here's their "welcome." You've heard it before: Students enter college Christian, but graduate atheist, Buddhist, Jedi, whatever.
TrueU.org is a community for college students who want to know and confidently discuss the Christian worldview. Our hope is that you'll graduate with your faith not only intact, but stronger than it was before.
In keeping with my books theme (thanks to all you readers who commented and shared your favorite titles), is an article that says Evangelicals are nothing if not bad writers. "My fellow Evangelicals publish reams upon reams of prose. What we have not tended to write is anything recognized as having literary value by the literary world," writes Donald T. Williams, a Professor of English and Director of the School of Arts and Sciences at Toccoa Falls College in Georgia, in "Writers Cramped."
He asserts that the really good literary writers anymore aren't Evangelicals. "The modern Christians who are important writers are all from liturgical churches: Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox." Among the examples he gives are G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, T. S. Eliot, Graham Greene, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Walker Percy, and Flannery O'Connor. They are, he says, "all recognized as important literary figures even by people who do not share their Christian commitment. ... The closest thing Evangelicalism has to a name that could rank with these is probably Walter Wangerin, Jr., who is not really a mainstream Evangelical but a Lutheran -- again, from a liturgical tradition."
He continues: Try to think of a conservative Baptist, a Free or Wesleyan Methodist or a Nazarene, a conservative Presbyterian, a Plymouth Brother, a member of the Evangelical Free Church or the Christian and Missionary Alliance, a Pentecostal, or a member of an independent Bible church who belongs in that company. (Some have mentioned writers who used to be in those churches—but the phrase "used to" in the observation is telling.)
The liturgical churches foster a lot of schlock and kitsch of their own, but they also nurture great writers and great writing. So far, we Evangelicals have not. In fact, we often positively discourage "literary" writing as being of questionable spiritual value.
The rest of the article is a tribute to the writings of Flannery O'Connor. Though I don't disagree that most of what lines the shelves of modern Christian bookstores lacks the weight of books by Lewis, Chesterton and the rest, I'm not convinced the blame lies with where modern writers go to church. I'm more inclined to think it's the fault of where they went to school.
How many of you who went to public schools and universities studied, or even read, the above mentioned authors? Isn't it hard to imagine a generation of literary geniuses coming from schools that have all but done away with the literary greats?
Ted's post got me thinking about which colleges are most represented on the blog when measured by visits. So I did some checking and thought it'd be fun to announce a top ten.
Over the last year (and it'll be a year August 31st since our first blog), Azusa Pacific University registered the most visits to our little blog with 1,246. Azusa Pacific is a Christian school in Southern California with an enrollment of about 4,200. Go Cougars!
Here's the rest of the ten (and a couple of notables):
2) Amherst College -- 1,224
3) Hillsdale College -- 1,058
4) University of Oklahoma -- 1,010
5) University of Chicago -- 990
6) University of Michigan -- 891
7) Yale University -- 847
8) St. John's College -- 786
9) Purdue University -- 669
10) University of Notre Dame -- 617
Overall, there were over 2,000 colleges with at least one visit to The Line. My alma mater, Clemson University in good ol' South Kakalaky, came in at number 20 with about 350 visits, about the same number as the University of Oxford. Not bad Tigers.
So whether it's one zealous fan with many visits or a group of you getting together at coffee shops to log-on, thanks so much for your participation. And keep reading. =)
If you like, you can use this thread to give a shout out for your school.
About half of you who visit Boundless and The Line are in college, either undergrad or grad school. And so thousands of you have either made your way back to campus, or are preparing to do so over the coming weeks.
University is an exciting place to learn, to grow friendships, to wrestle with ideas. It can also be dangerous to your faith, as seen by the number of Christians who lose their faith in college.
Don't want to become a statistic? Good. Interested in getting some tips on how to thrive as a Christian in College? We've got just what you need, an article first published in February titled, "How Not to Lose Your Faith in College."
Specific words of advice include "find and join a good church," "choose your friends with biblical criteria in view" and "remain sexually pure." Let me challenge you to spend a few minutes to read the article, to consider these tips and the others offered there. I honestly believe this one article could prove pivotal for you.
Yes, they're only words, but words are wrappers for ideas, and ideas have consequences. It's my sincere prayer that these words produce blessed consequences in your life.
If you're a high school graduate and have a superior command of the English language, here are 100 words you should know. It's a list compiled by the Editors of The American Heritage Dictionaries that "is representative of the words that serious students will encounter in their coursework and will come to use as adults, whether in conversation or while reading the daily newspaper."
And of course, here on this blog as well.
And if you try to belie it, I'll expurgate your comment.
A few weeks ago, I blogged about a Georgia Tech grad student who was mistreated by faculty and threatened by other students for "being politically conservative on campus." It was an extreme example of widespread bias that exists at universities against any and all things conservative. And according to a new study from the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, there's widespread religious prejudice as well ... primarily against Evangelical Christians.
Here's a portion of the findings they termed "troubling":
- Faculty that are Evangelicals are found in far fewer numbers than in the general public
- Faculty have strong negatives views of Evangelicals compared to other religions
- Faculty believe Muslims should advocate their religious beliefs in politics but not Evangelicals
In an interview with one of the researchers, Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online asks Dr. Gary Tobin about the hypocrisy of academia's bigotry against one specific religious group when preaching tolerance for everything else. Lopez: Isn't liberal academia supposed to be more tolerant than this?
Tobin: Absolutely. Campuses are very focused on the idea of tolerance — you've got anti hate-speech codes, minority recognition celebrations, and special academic departments devoted to the study of ethnic groups. But tolerance is very much a selective affair — I suppose Republican-leaning students have known this for years; but this isn't a question of ideological or political tolerance. It's a question of religious tolerance. How many academics actually know evangelicals — personally and socially? Yet they hold a special distaste for them — it is odd.
Tobin says that if universities would send the message that all forms of prejudice is unacceptable, then the "anti-evangelicalism would start to unravel" like it did with racism.
HT: Dr. Albert Mohler
Roberto Rivera y Carlo's recent article, "Ordinary People," got me thinking about the growing problem of narcissism. The aversion to "ordinariness" carries a lot of nasty side effects. This Boston Globe article considers a recent study showing that today's college students are the most narcissistic and self-centered in decades. And experts are saying: "We have no one to blame but ourselves." "Things went too far," says psychologist Jean Twenge, lead author of the study and a professor at San Diego State University.
What she means is that parents overcorrected for the harshness of a previous generation that preferred children to be "seen and not heard." She points to the soccer trophies that coaches hand out to all team members just for showing up rather than to a few for outstanding athleticism, and to a song taught in a colleague's daughter's preschool to the tune of "Frère Jacques": "I am special/I am special/Look at me."
"If you're that child, it's not surprising that pretty soon you start to believe it," says Twenge, whose new book, "Generation Me," examines feelings of entitlement among young Americans.
I'm fascinated by how this approach seeped into Christian culture as well. The Bible clubs I taught as a teen had competitions in which it was stressed that there were no losers. There was the winning team and the second place team. This may have been a harmless effort to make everyone feel accepted, but it was reflective of the sentiment Twenge is talking about. She continues: "We live in a very individualistic culture. Telling each child he or she is special is based on the premise that building self-esteem leads to good outcomes. It works the other way around: Good outcomes lead to self-esteem. What people thought builds self-esteem turns out to build narcissism."
That's pretty provocative stuff. Somewhere along the line, we decided that high self-esteem automatically produces good fruit. While pride (narcissism) is condemned repeatedly in Scripture, Proverbs 13:4 says, "the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied." Diligence, not "specialness," leads to a good outcome and proper self-esteem. Wouldn't it be great if schoolroom songs taught messages of diligence and responsibility? Sounds a little too ordinary.
HT: Justin Taylor
Georgia Tech graduate student Ruth Malhotra has received multiple death and rape threats from students, an unwarranted failing grade from a professor, and has been told that her actions were intolerant and distasteful by the administration. Her crime? Being politically conservative on campus.
In today's Frontpagemag.com, Peter Collier details Malhotra's "offenses", the threats, and the Georgia Tech administration's response. Here's one of the milder attacks she received this past February in the form of a Valentines Day "poem": This Valentine's Day, you cannot attack gay marriage. It is about love and you are about hate.
This Valentine's Day, you cannot condemn a woman's choice. It is about love and you are about hate.
This Valentine's Day, you cannot protest the Vagina Monologues. It is about love and you are about hate.
No, this Valentine's Day, you will be Raped. Sex is about love and through it you will experience hate. I cannot wait.
Collier reports that even though some of these threats include the names of students, the administration and campus police have yet to take action. Malhotra's attorney David French, head of the Alliance Defense Fund's Center for Academic Freedom, wonders if this is to become standard operating procedure for the academia's liberal ideologues. "I've never seen anything quite like this. The tolerant left at Georgia Tech seems to have decided that Ruth must be destroyed to protect 'tolerance.' The administration sees one of its own threatened by death and rape and they just sit there. I've seen conservative students suffer a lot of abuse for their beliefs. But I've never seen abuse cross over into threats."
I became politically active and a Christian post-college so I'm personally unfamiliar with this type of intimidation from academia's ivory tower. I'd be interested to know if any of our readers have been discriminated against for their political or Christian views.
HT: World Mag Blog
I was a little shocked to read a story last night saying that members of a Christian group had been suspended by Savannah State University for following the Biblical model of washing feet and evangelizing.
Have you heard anything about this story?
How can today's university put up with the crazy and more threatening beliefs and behaviors they usually tolerate and choose to crack down on this kind of faith expression?
Guys and Gals,
I work at a placed called the Focus on the Family Institute. It is pretty awesome. You should come!
I came to the Institute as a student in the Fall of 2004 and -- I'm not even exaggerating -- it changed my life. I learned a ton through the classes (worldview, family, marriage, church & society), I made lifelong friends (including my current boyfriend!), and I did a great internship with Brio Magazine (that's right, girls, I worked with Susie Shellenberger!).
Plus, I got to spend time in Colorado -- hiking, skiing, rock climbing. It was a pretty great adventure.
If you're in college, or if you've graduated and are not older than 26, you should definitely think of applying for a semester. The deadline for this summer's semester is March 1, and the deadline for the fall semester is April 15.
If you'd like to talk to someone or request more information, you can do so here. You can request an application packet which includes the Institute DVD -- it gives a really good picture of what your semester would look like (look for me as you watch it :-).
OK, enough promo. Seriously, though. Come discover what God has for you at the Institute. It'll be worth it!
When I started out at Michigan Tech, my faith in the Lord was intact.
Within a couple of months, I was getting drunk, smoking marijuana, hanging out with "the wrong crowd," not going to church, growing depressed, and finding God increasingly irrelevant.
I was losing my faith.
I earned two D's that semester, dropped out, moved back to my mom's house, and didn't continue my college education for over a year.
What went wrong? Simply put, I didn't have a plan for seeing my faith in the Lord grow. And in a new environment with new opportunities, without a plan, I failed.
We published an article this morning laying out some specific things you can do to grow in your faith during the difficult transition from home to college. If I had followed even a couple of the practical points author Thabiti Anyabwile makes in "How Not to Lose Your Faith in College," my life would have been dramatically different, and I would not have experienced and caused the pain that I did.
If you're a college student, please read this article. If you're short on time, just skim it. If you have a friend who's in college, please forward it to them.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that it could change their life.
Charles Murray, author of the controversial The Bell Curve, has a sensational article published in Wednesday's Opinion Journal warning that "too many Americans are going to college." He writes, "... a four-year college education teaches advanced analytic skills and information at a level that exceeds the intellectual capacity of most people" -- most being 85 percent to be exact. These people, Murray says, should be pursuing vocational training instead of four-year degrees.
C'mon, Charles. Certainly there's something to be said for hard work inside the classroom with disciplined study at home. I've known highly motivated individuals who weren't exactly rocket scientists that performed better in college than more intelligent people who lacked maturity, desire, or direction. Murray's assessment reminds me of a Simpson's episode when Homer tells Bart and Lisa, "Kids, you tried your best and failed miserably. The lesson is, never try." It seems Murray is saying the same thing to people with average IQs about higher education -- never try.
Overall though, I think that many people now seeking four-year degrees would do better with vocational training -- some because of IQ and some because of motivation. I may have been one of them. Coming out of high school I was what Murray describes as mildly motivated. And a mildly motivated student can easily fail out of college, regardless of IQ.
Murray writes: Large numbers of those who are intellectually qualified for college also do not yearn for four years of college-level courses. They go to college because their parents are paying for it and college is what children of their social class are supposed to do after they finish high school. They may have the ability to understand the material in Economics 1 but they do not want to. They, too, need to learn to make a living -- and would do better in vocational training.
The article is full of insight for young adults to consider before choosing an educational path. For example, being aware of lucrative opportunities vocational training may provide could begin to lessen the stigma of it being a "second class" path. A reality about the job market must eventually begin to affect the valuation of a college education: The spread of wealth at the top of American society has created an explosive increase in the demand for craftsmen. Finding a good lawyer or physician is easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, glazier, mason -- the list goes on and on -- is difficult, and it is a seller's market. Journeymen craftsmen routinely make incomes in the top half of the income distribution while master craftsmen can make six figures. They have work even in a soft economy. Their jobs cannot be outsourced to India. And the craftsman's job provides wonderful intrinsic rewards that come from mastery of a challenging skill that produces tangible results. How many white-collar jobs provide nearly as much satisfaction?
Not many that I've found.
HT: World Mag Blog
I thought I'd take some time to promote one of my own articles. I'm pretty shameless.
Some of the college students on TrueU.org were talking about the dilemma many women face when it comes to careers: Should I continue to work once I have children? Is it OK for me to make more money than my husband? Why am I wasting all of this money on tuition if I won't even have a career? (Candice has addressed this issue on Boundless as well.)
I decided to explore this idea myself, since it's something I've thought about in regard to my own career. What I discovered is that there are some biblical women who have "careers" of sorts. But there is also biblical instruction for men's and women's roles within marriage. What I believe is that it basically comes down to our attitudes about the situation -- how can we serve one another and glorify God through the way we approach our careers?
Anyway, I can't give the entire article away! If you'd like to check it out, that would be great. And if you agree or disagree, please come let me know in the related discussion.
OK, I'm off to work!
Still in school after four years? You're not alone. In "College: The New Four- Six-Year Degree," David S. Eisen discusses the challenges today's college students face exiting college in a timely manner. The four-year degree is largely a thing of the past. According to a 2006 study by the National Center for Education Statistics, less than 35 percent of students at "four-year colleges" are able to complete their bachelor's degree in four years or fewer. But most do graduate — more than 56 percent eventually get their B.A. within six years. The data was culled from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, which captured graduation rates of full-time undergraduate students beginning in 1998 from more than 6,500 institutions.
I noticed a difference even between myself and my younger sister. We're five years apart and attended the same college. All of my close friends and I graduated in four years. My sister and many of her friends, however, added a minor, took time off to work, studied abroad or made other choices that kept them in school an additional year.
Research indicates a lack of motivation isn't the primary reason students are lingering. Some universities aren't facilitating the timely completion of requirements. Students are unable to take the classes they need for graduation within the four-year period. The rising cost of tuition is another factor. Today's college students have to work more hours to pay for the same ratio of tuition as students even five years ago.
Moving from a four- to six-year college education, is not a good trend. It's costly, and it further delays the growing-up process. What was once a clear indicator of adulthood — four years of college followed by graduation — is turning into an indefinite process. To combat the problem, a few colleges are offering incentives to those who graduate in four years and providing intensive counseling to help students succeed. Let's hope other schools will follow suit and commit to reversing this costly trend.
According to yesterday's "BreakPoint" commentary, a faculty panel at Harvard University has issued a report calling for a "faith and reason" requirement to be included in the school's core curriculum. Their reasoning: Knowledge about religion is integral to a good education. Discussing reactions to the decision, Chuck Colson writes: Predictably, there were those who objected to Harvard's "faith and reason" requirement. A Harvard Crimson editorial said that the requirement gives "religious ideas" a "preeminence incommensurate with their proper place in understanding the modern world." In other words, while religion is important, it's just not that important, so says the postmodernist.
Besides, the Crimson argued, students can learn enough about religion from the general education requirements. Oh sure! Just as they learned what they needed to know about history from such requirements. That's why 65 percent of seniors at elite colleges like Harvard flunked a high-school level history test, and 23 percent of them thought it was John F. Kennedy who said, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
Also writing in the Crimson were two Harvard students who got it. They articulated what the editorialists could not or would not understand: "Studying religion," they said, "involves coping with unanswerable questions, confronting humanity’s limitations, and thinking beyond oneself. No literature or science course can teach these skills." Nor can ethics be taught without a religious base. Remember Mr. Skilling of Enron, who is heading off to prison, was a Harvard graduate.
While the "faith and reason" requirement most likely will not return Harvard to its original spiritual purposes of training men for the clergy, Colson points out that facilitating religious discussion is a step in the right direction. We ought to welcome the opportunity for an open, free debate. Then we Christians can present the evidence of our faith's positive effect on building the greatest civilization the world has ever known.
HT: The Point
So college students don't know much about history. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute was right to point out that "students don't learn what colleges don't teach." So what, if not history, are colleges teaching? Well at Yale, one of the schools to perform at the bottom on the ISI survey, they're teaching sex. Lots of sex.
According to the September 26 edition of the Yale Daily News: Yale may be consistently ranking third in the U.S. News & World Report's list of "America's Best Colleges," but when it comes to sexual health, Yale is on top.
Earlier this month, the University earned the top ranking in a recent survey by Trojan Brand Condoms about sexual health on America's campuses.
Trojan's Sexual Health Report Card noted the resources the University offers to students facing a sexual-health crisis, the birth-control measures it makes available to students, the helpfulness of Yale's Web site and special events like Sex Week at Yale in granting the top honor, said Bert Sperling, the president of Sperling's Best Places, the research firm that compiled the report.
Yale is lauded for encouraging "love, sex, intimacy, relationships, health." When I hear those words, I think marriage. Yale thinks condoms. And experimentation. And titillation. Pornography, in short.
According to ISI what colleges should be doing is prioritizing their "mission and fundamental responsibility to prepare its students to be informed, engaged participants in a democratic republic." According to the Trojan condom company what colleges should be praised for doing well is helping students in the area of "sexual health."
Forget American history, government, foreign affairs and the economy -- the four subjects ISI's 60-question survey covered. If you're set on a top-shelf, $200,000 university degree, you may be in for quite a shock.
Not only are we facing a crisis of citizenship, but of the very morality necessary for our system to function.
"The university lies in ruins," writes Al Mohler in his blog on this story. "The character of the university has been corrupted and, in turn, the university now threatens to corrupt, rather than to educate the young."
Cultural observers tell us today's teens and twentysomethings have the potential to be the next great generation. The book Millennials Rising says that "today's kids are on track to become a powerhouse generation, full of technology planners, community shapers, institution builders, and world leaders, perhaps destined to dominate the twenty-first century like today's fading and ennobled G.I. Generation dominated the twentieth."
So, how are America's storied institutions of higher learning doing in cultivating all that raw potential? Not so good.
Yesterday, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute released a troubling report called "The Coming Crisis in Citizenship." The broad study of more than 14,000 students shows that "colleges and universities across America including some of the most expensive and elite in the United States, are failing to add to their graduates' understanding of America's history and essential institutions."
Amazingly many schools such as Yale, Duke, UVA, Georgetown, Brown and others had seniors do more poorly than incoming freshmen -- showing that students were actually slipping during their time there. As a result, one of ISI's recommendation is to hold "higher education more accountable to its mission and fundamental responsibilities to prepare its students to be informed, engaged participants in a democratic republic."
Such accountability would require many higher education leaders to humbly ask if they have put biases from their own generational agendas ahead of properly cultivating the promise and potential of a new generation of leaders.
HT to Opinion Journal
Copyright 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
|
Recent Comments