According to Thomas King, the truth about stories is that's all we are. If this is true, then my story is heavily invested in the debt narrative.
My student loans for grad school are currently in forbearance - I can't afford the payments, which would be $650 a month if I was paying every portion. That's about 25% of my take-home pay. So I'm only paying on my Direct loan from the federal government, which is only 6% of my take-home pay. The bulk of my debt is held by a private debt service company who bought most of my loans. Today, I was paying bills and putting through another request to keep the bulk of my loans in forbearance for another year to give myself a chance to catch up financially and maybe even save some money and I noticed that my loans have risen from a total of $66,000 (principal plus interest since 2006), to over $72,000 thanks to accumulating interest. And that is after I've paid off some of the smaller amounts ($2,500 and under).
Amazing how expensive American education is. But that's not the best part.
In this nation of plenty, I find myself with a really good job - a college professor - a job that comes with a certain amount of suspicion or gravitas, depending on whose opinion is being solicited. I live in a safe neighborhood, have a decent and functional wardrobe, eat fairly healthy foods. But at my job, I and my faculty colleagues still do not have a contract - since August. Therefore, all of my living expenses - from gas to food to rent - have risen, but like many Americans, my salary remains stagnant. I had to do something. Something drastic.
So I'm buying a duplex for $165k. As a first-time home buyer, I receive some rate breaks and with an FHA mortgage, I can put a small amount down as opposed to 20%, which would take me a lifetime to save up. The place I've selected is in tip-top shape - and I don't say that lightly. The mechanicals are damn near perfect - a new roof, new high-energy efficiency HVAC system, and new water heaters within five years. Beautifully maintained. The place won't need serious maintenance for ten years. It's basically a buyer's wet dream.
Becoming a landlord after 23 years of being a tenant might be intimidating, but I am confident I can handle it, especially because this place has a positive cash flow. Fully rented, this place pays for the mortgage and then some - by quite a bit. Once I move in, I will only collect one rent, but that comes within $200 of paying the monthly mortgage, leaving me quite the additional income to pay off bills, save for property maintenance, and save for myself (finally).
Go figure.
Only in America could I be so deeply in debt for my education, have a fantastic job that doesn't pay me enough, and be able to go much deeper into debt in order to increase my salary and be able to afford to live a moderate lifestyle and start really whittling away at paying down my debt.
I suppose it's called playing the game. Gotta pay to play? But part of me also shrinks in horror at the ridiculousness of it. This is some story.
What's your story?
Monday, January 30, 2012
Monday, November 21, 2011
Making it known
"Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it."
Henry David Thoreau penned this statement in the first part of his famous essay, "Civil Disobedience" in 1849 (originally "Resistance to Civil Government") and the idea rings as true today as it did in his time. Perhaps more so.
In light of the heinous acts perpetrated on the UC Davis student protesters this week, which in itself reflects a disturbing escalation in the authority-driven violence that this movement has somehow incited (possibly because of a few lone out-of-line protesters in some locations?), I was reminded of Thoreau's essay and of our nation's long history of civil disobedience in order to create real and substantial change.
If Jefferson, Franklin, et al, hadn't disobeyed the King, we might still be English. If people hadn't protested slavery (and had a war that contributed to that argument), we might still have pro-slavery laws. If women hadn't broken the law by occupying public spaces and protesting on behalf of themselves, we might not have the right to vote today. If brave men and women hadn't linked arms and walked across Selma, Alabama, or taken seats at lunch counters and on buses where they were not allowed to be...the American Civil Rights movement would have been a faint whisper, not a roaring lion of change that now inspires gay rights activists to push for changes to antiquated, religiously-based marriage laws in our secular government.
Our government has always changed to reflect the needs and desires of its citizens...usually because we citizens rise up in non-violent civil disobedient actions that cause a whole lot of people a whole lot of headaches to the point that they can't ignore the issue anymore. Pretty sound and effective strategy if you ask me. Thoreau was on to something.
Let's take a look at that initial statement I started with:
"Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it."
Notice that he doesn't, at this point, say HOW we should make it known. Just that every man should make known what kind of government would command his respect. And the making known is "one step toward obtaining it."
The Occupy Movement is beyond this first step just three months after its inception, but these words reflect how that movement started - a rather unorganized, but solidified group of Americans, believing in the idea that wealth and economic opportunity are dangerously unbalanced in this nation, to the detriment of 99% of our citizens. (And yes, I chose a liberal web site for a description because all of the conservative-leaning explanations are so fallacious and filled with fear rhetoric that it paints a terribly unbalanced and untrue picture. The Huffington Post site is sympathetic to the cause, but I do believe they present the facts as they are, not as they wish to see them, at least in this case.)
Now to the question: What kind of government would command MY respect? What kind of government would command YOUR respect? This seems to be at least one of the underlying questions the Occupy Movement tackles - they are presenting their case (making known), through civil disobedience (and Constitutionally-approved actions), the kind of government that would command their respect. And in the making known (the occupying, the protesting, the Youtube videos, etc.), they are taking the first step toward OBTAINING the government that they/we would respect.
Given all of the historical precedents...why is this movement such a problem for those in "authority"? When faced with seated, cowering, unarmed college students, why would a police officer in full riot gear, loaded with various weapons of control, feel that the right course of action would be violence? Perhaps for the same reason that in all of those historical situations that I cited, the people in authority at that time reacted violently...because they could sense a sea-change coming and they not only disagreed with it, they feared its coming. Think about all of the fear-based rhetoric surrounding our current President - if you ask my parents, you'll discover that world as we know it is ending. Right now. And that idea is endorsed daily on conservative talk radio and on the many shows of Fox News.
However, for those of us that live in this world right now, and see it and accept it in all of its variety and tainted glory, and are willing to accept the good with the bad, the not so great with the absolutely amazing, we understand that making it known is not against the law - even if it requires breaking a few rules to MAKE it known.
We have a right to peacefully assemble according to our Constitution. And according to Thoreau, every person should "make known what kind of government would command his respect" as a first step toward obtaining it. This is the fundamental principle underlying our flawed and imperfect, yet somehow useful system of government. We embrace its flaws and misguided ideas as much as we tout its strengths and capabilities. And this is precisely why those of us who don't make $1,000,000 or more a year should embrace the Occupy movement and condemn any who stand in its way.
Let the movement run its course and see what kind of sea-change will result. No more pepper spray attacks on unarmed, seated, peaceful protesters. No more rubber bullets or batons or paintballs. Unfortunately, the violence perpetrated by authority figures, while sickening, might be necessary to capture the attention of those with the power to make the change. That also has long historical precedent - a peaceful movement reacted to with violence, which only galvanizes the movement and hones the power of the message to a fine and persuasive point, which leads to substantial legal change.
This is a very exciting time to be an American. With massive unemployment and economic disparity, change like this is inevitable. So to those who fear or misunderstand it, take note of our history and of Thoreau's words. May they give you solace and courage to accept the change that is coming.
Henry David Thoreau penned this statement in the first part of his famous essay, "Civil Disobedience" in 1849 (originally "Resistance to Civil Government") and the idea rings as true today as it did in his time. Perhaps more so.
In light of the heinous acts perpetrated on the UC Davis student protesters this week, which in itself reflects a disturbing escalation in the authority-driven violence that this movement has somehow incited (possibly because of a few lone out-of-line protesters in some locations?), I was reminded of Thoreau's essay and of our nation's long history of civil disobedience in order to create real and substantial change.
If Jefferson, Franklin, et al, hadn't disobeyed the King, we might still be English. If people hadn't protested slavery (and had a war that contributed to that argument), we might still have pro-slavery laws. If women hadn't broken the law by occupying public spaces and protesting on behalf of themselves, we might not have the right to vote today. If brave men and women hadn't linked arms and walked across Selma, Alabama, or taken seats at lunch counters and on buses where they were not allowed to be...the American Civil Rights movement would have been a faint whisper, not a roaring lion of change that now inspires gay rights activists to push for changes to antiquated, religiously-based marriage laws in our secular government.
Our government has always changed to reflect the needs and desires of its citizens...usually because we citizens rise up in non-violent civil disobedient actions that cause a whole lot of people a whole lot of headaches to the point that they can't ignore the issue anymore. Pretty sound and effective strategy if you ask me. Thoreau was on to something.
Let's take a look at that initial statement I started with:
"Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it."
Notice that he doesn't, at this point, say HOW we should make it known. Just that every man should make known what kind of government would command his respect. And the making known is "one step toward obtaining it."
The Occupy Movement is beyond this first step just three months after its inception, but these words reflect how that movement started - a rather unorganized, but solidified group of Americans, believing in the idea that wealth and economic opportunity are dangerously unbalanced in this nation, to the detriment of 99% of our citizens. (And yes, I chose a liberal web site for a description because all of the conservative-leaning explanations are so fallacious and filled with fear rhetoric that it paints a terribly unbalanced and untrue picture. The Huffington Post site is sympathetic to the cause, but I do believe they present the facts as they are, not as they wish to see them, at least in this case.)
Now to the question: What kind of government would command MY respect? What kind of government would command YOUR respect? This seems to be at least one of the underlying questions the Occupy Movement tackles - they are presenting their case (making known), through civil disobedience (and Constitutionally-approved actions), the kind of government that would command their respect. And in the making known (the occupying, the protesting, the Youtube videos, etc.), they are taking the first step toward OBTAINING the government that they/we would respect.
Given all of the historical precedents...why is this movement such a problem for those in "authority"? When faced with seated, cowering, unarmed college students, why would a police officer in full riot gear, loaded with various weapons of control, feel that the right course of action would be violence? Perhaps for the same reason that in all of those historical situations that I cited, the people in authority at that time reacted violently...because they could sense a sea-change coming and they not only disagreed with it, they feared its coming. Think about all of the fear-based rhetoric surrounding our current President - if you ask my parents, you'll discover that world as we know it is ending. Right now. And that idea is endorsed daily on conservative talk radio and on the many shows of Fox News.
However, for those of us that live in this world right now, and see it and accept it in all of its variety and tainted glory, and are willing to accept the good with the bad, the not so great with the absolutely amazing, we understand that making it known is not against the law - even if it requires breaking a few rules to MAKE it known.
We have a right to peacefully assemble according to our Constitution. And according to Thoreau, every person should "make known what kind of government would command his respect" as a first step toward obtaining it. This is the fundamental principle underlying our flawed and imperfect, yet somehow useful system of government. We embrace its flaws and misguided ideas as much as we tout its strengths and capabilities. And this is precisely why those of us who don't make $1,000,000 or more a year should embrace the Occupy movement and condemn any who stand in its way.
Let the movement run its course and see what kind of sea-change will result. No more pepper spray attacks on unarmed, seated, peaceful protesters. No more rubber bullets or batons or paintballs. Unfortunately, the violence perpetrated by authority figures, while sickening, might be necessary to capture the attention of those with the power to make the change. That also has long historical precedent - a peaceful movement reacted to with violence, which only galvanizes the movement and hones the power of the message to a fine and persuasive point, which leads to substantial legal change.
This is a very exciting time to be an American. With massive unemployment and economic disparity, change like this is inevitable. So to those who fear or misunderstand it, take note of our history and of Thoreau's words. May they give you solace and courage to accept the change that is coming.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Self-sufficiency: A dead idea?
Somehow, self-sufficiency as a term, lifestyle, thought process, and concept has died. In my experience, self-sufficiency breeds confidence, which feeds and strengthens the self-sufficient mindset. When exactly did this idea die?
While it is easy to assign generational blame (The Boomers! It's all THEIR fault! The Xers! They're the ones! No, no! The Millennials! Yes, yes, THEY'RE the ones who dropped the ball...) to our faltering society, I prefer to consider overall attitudes and approaches to our collective problems. A fellow blogger in this vast digital space posted a rather incendiary rant about how us Gen Xers were able to cope with all sorts of social and economic difficulties and somehow survive - so what's wrong with these darned kids today?!
Part of me deeply agrees with the sentiments expressed in that blog post. Far from being nihilistic, narcissistic, or self-aggrandizing, my generation tends to be filled with hard-working, entrepreneurial, and self-sufficient people who just want to do for themselves and their families and communities and be left alone. It's actually very Libertarian of us as a generation, but without the crazy stump speeches.
Here's where the generational blame can trickle in - people who are now in their late teens and early 20s (Post-Millennials) tend to despair of their potential futures and often retreat into that despair (and inaction) instead of thinking their way around this massive obstacle. Which obstacle would that be? I don't know, pick one. Massive social and financial inequality (class warfare, anyone?). Disparity in educational opportunity and access. A government that doesn't really seem to see its own people, much less care about its people's welfare (in the sense of happiness, well-being, and prosperity as opposed to the "hand-up"/"hand-out" government-run system of assistance for those at or below the brink of poverty). Less jobs in the areas we've come to expect to see lots of jobs. Inconclusive and unfinished wars that the U.S. is perpetually and infuriatingly involved with. The persistent destruction of natural habitats and species worldwide (for us tree-hugger types).
I could go on. But here's where I pause and hesitate to step across the line into accusation...
How are these circumstances fundamentally and materially different from the world in which I grew up as a Gen Xer? Aside from degrees of severity in each situation, I don't see how things are all that different. And this strengthens my resolve to push creativity and the intellectual flexibility that accompanies it as the solution to all of this hand-wringing despair and what some would call reactionary movements that have yet to achieve any real action or change (I did say YET).
How do creativity and self-sufficiency then connect? Easy. Those who have a self-sufficient mindset - who are not made to feel dependent on others for their thoughts and actions - who not only believe they are capable of figuring anything out, but who KNOW through practice, that all problems have multiple solutions - who want to materially provide for themselves come what may - those are the people who will naturally use their creative thinking abilities to, as Tim Gunn might say, "Make it work." How many Gen-Xers grew up with this mindset approved and encouraged by their parents, families, and schools? I would suggest most. How many kids today grow up with this mindset approved and encouraged at home and at school? I would venture very unscientifically into...well, not many (based on what I see my students thinking and struggling with).
To criticize people today, regardless of their generational label, for lacking self-sufficiency seems a horrible crime. How dare you suggest that people can make their own ways?! Do anything for themselves?! Have you SEEN how difficult things are?!
Yes, I have seen how difficult things are. I know the numbers of people out of work. I feel bad that a vast portion of our populace has neither the access nor the opportunities that I and many of my cohort had. However, to wallow in despair (as some of my students do) and lament that all is lost, no future is to be found because our economy is done for...is to miss an opportunity. What happened to thinking your way around a problem? The brilliant people who speak at TED do it all the time in the face of impossible odds. They figure it out. They make it work. They work hard to make their ideas come to fruition.
This is the message and the lesson we should be passing on to the younger generations. No one should be filling young heads with despair and doom. We should be encouraging them to think differently about their futures, to generate new ideas and businesses that will respond to and fulfill a need in this NEW reality.
We can't change the sins of the past. But we can change how the younger generation considers their present and future worlds by encouraging them to be more self-sufficient and think their way around these seemingly impenetrable problems. We CAN develop new programs and businesses and career paths that will work in this new economy. We SHOULD work together to vote people into office who will make better decisions. We MUST encourage a self-sufficient mindset so that the upcoming generations don't lose faith before they even have a chance to begin.
If self-sufficiency is a dead idea, then we may be dooming ourselves to a future without innovation, without creativity, and without any ability to see our way past difficult situations. What a terrible legacy to leave behind. We, as Gen Xers, should take up this challenge and find a young person to speak to about being self-sufficient. Individual actions can change the world, after all.
While it is easy to assign generational blame (The Boomers! It's all THEIR fault! The Xers! They're the ones! No, no! The Millennials! Yes, yes, THEY'RE the ones who dropped the ball...) to our faltering society, I prefer to consider overall attitudes and approaches to our collective problems. A fellow blogger in this vast digital space posted a rather incendiary rant about how us Gen Xers were able to cope with all sorts of social and economic difficulties and somehow survive - so what's wrong with these darned kids today?!
Part of me deeply agrees with the sentiments expressed in that blog post. Far from being nihilistic, narcissistic, or self-aggrandizing, my generation tends to be filled with hard-working, entrepreneurial, and self-sufficient people who just want to do for themselves and their families and communities and be left alone. It's actually very Libertarian of us as a generation, but without the crazy stump speeches.
Here's where the generational blame can trickle in - people who are now in their late teens and early 20s (Post-Millennials) tend to despair of their potential futures and often retreat into that despair (and inaction) instead of thinking their way around this massive obstacle. Which obstacle would that be? I don't know, pick one. Massive social and financial inequality (class warfare, anyone?). Disparity in educational opportunity and access. A government that doesn't really seem to see its own people, much less care about its people's welfare (in the sense of happiness, well-being, and prosperity as opposed to the "hand-up"/"hand-out" government-run system of assistance for those at or below the brink of poverty). Less jobs in the areas we've come to expect to see lots of jobs. Inconclusive and unfinished wars that the U.S. is perpetually and infuriatingly involved with. The persistent destruction of natural habitats and species worldwide (for us tree-hugger types).
I could go on. But here's where I pause and hesitate to step across the line into accusation...
How are these circumstances fundamentally and materially different from the world in which I grew up as a Gen Xer? Aside from degrees of severity in each situation, I don't see how things are all that different. And this strengthens my resolve to push creativity and the intellectual flexibility that accompanies it as the solution to all of this hand-wringing despair and what some would call reactionary movements that have yet to achieve any real action or change (I did say YET).
How do creativity and self-sufficiency then connect? Easy. Those who have a self-sufficient mindset - who are not made to feel dependent on others for their thoughts and actions - who not only believe they are capable of figuring anything out, but who KNOW through practice, that all problems have multiple solutions - who want to materially provide for themselves come what may - those are the people who will naturally use their creative thinking abilities to, as Tim Gunn might say, "Make it work." How many Gen-Xers grew up with this mindset approved and encouraged by their parents, families, and schools? I would suggest most. How many kids today grow up with this mindset approved and encouraged at home and at school? I would venture very unscientifically into...well, not many (based on what I see my students thinking and struggling with).
To criticize people today, regardless of their generational label, for lacking self-sufficiency seems a horrible crime. How dare you suggest that people can make their own ways?! Do anything for themselves?! Have you SEEN how difficult things are?!
Yes, I have seen how difficult things are. I know the numbers of people out of work. I feel bad that a vast portion of our populace has neither the access nor the opportunities that I and many of my cohort had. However, to wallow in despair (as some of my students do) and lament that all is lost, no future is to be found because our economy is done for...is to miss an opportunity. What happened to thinking your way around a problem? The brilliant people who speak at TED do it all the time in the face of impossible odds. They figure it out. They make it work. They work hard to make their ideas come to fruition.
This is the message and the lesson we should be passing on to the younger generations. No one should be filling young heads with despair and doom. We should be encouraging them to think differently about their futures, to generate new ideas and businesses that will respond to and fulfill a need in this NEW reality.
We can't change the sins of the past. But we can change how the younger generation considers their present and future worlds by encouraging them to be more self-sufficient and think their way around these seemingly impenetrable problems. We CAN develop new programs and businesses and career paths that will work in this new economy. We SHOULD work together to vote people into office who will make better decisions. We MUST encourage a self-sufficient mindset so that the upcoming generations don't lose faith before they even have a chance to begin.
If self-sufficiency is a dead idea, then we may be dooming ourselves to a future without innovation, without creativity, and without any ability to see our way past difficult situations. What a terrible legacy to leave behind. We, as Gen Xers, should take up this challenge and find a young person to speak to about being self-sufficient. Individual actions can change the world, after all.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The Most Awesome In-Class Writing Exercise Ever
Tonight, I presented my Advanced Comp students with a writing exercise inspired by one of our readings, with an imaginative twist. I wrote it myself this semester. And I am blown away by their creativity. Following the assignment directions (feel free to use this with your own students and share the results!) is the list of diseases my students developed. Enjoy!
Writing Prompt: Self-Diagnosis
Diagnose yourself with a disease. Not just ANY disease - not one that already exists in reality. Use your imagination and consider your character flaws, quirks, habits, and behaviors that you know you could work on and turn one of those elements into a disease.
Make up a name for your disease and be consistent when you refer to it.
Write a diagnosis for yourself in third person (you are the doctor AND the patient). Include a brief history of the disease in your patient's life (when was the first onset? What are the triggers that bring on flare-ups? Etc.), list out some symptoms and behaviors or medications taken or tried in order to correct the problem (that have, thus far, proven unequal to the task), and recommend a course of action and treatment to help your patient (you) overcome and beat this terrible affliction. (Bonus points for the wildest, funniest disease.) Have fun!
As an added incentive, I also offered small packets of "Crazy Cores" Skittles (TM) to the five most creative diseases - suggested by the class after I wrote them all on the board. Definitely one of the most fun and satisfying (and hysterical) writing prompts I've created. The students also seemed to enjoy it, which is the ultimate point - getting students to think of writing as FUN. ;)
Here are their diseases:
Shitfurbrain (Alternate Spelling: Shytfurbrain)
Gingervirus
Bratabiphita
Hypofoodisplatiatransformatia
Textitis
Patriowlism
Blurtitis
Hearteevious
Cerphileriosis
Miseraphobia
Apologetic Disorder
Tallskinnyasskidneosis
Nagatosis
Alien Ghost Poop Disorder (AGPD)
Writing Prompt: Self-Diagnosis
Diagnose yourself with a disease. Not just ANY disease - not one that already exists in reality. Use your imagination and consider your character flaws, quirks, habits, and behaviors that you know you could work on and turn one of those elements into a disease.
Make up a name for your disease and be consistent when you refer to it.
Write a diagnosis for yourself in third person (you are the doctor AND the patient). Include a brief history of the disease in your patient's life (when was the first onset? What are the triggers that bring on flare-ups? Etc.), list out some symptoms and behaviors or medications taken or tried in order to correct the problem (that have, thus far, proven unequal to the task), and recommend a course of action and treatment to help your patient (you) overcome and beat this terrible affliction. (Bonus points for the wildest, funniest disease.) Have fun!
As an added incentive, I also offered small packets of "Crazy Cores" Skittles (TM) to the five most creative diseases - suggested by the class after I wrote them all on the board. Definitely one of the most fun and satisfying (and hysterical) writing prompts I've created. The students also seemed to enjoy it, which is the ultimate point - getting students to think of writing as FUN. ;)
Here are their diseases:
Shitfurbrain (Alternate Spelling: Shytfurbrain)
Gingervirus
Bratabiphita
Hypofoodisplatiatransformatia
Textitis
Patriowlism
Blurtitis
Hearteevious
Cerphileriosis
Miseraphobia
Apologetic Disorder
Tallskinnyasskidneosis
Nagatosis
Alien Ghost Poop Disorder (AGPD)
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sign of the times?
One of my students just had a breakdown. Not an "I'm so spoiled and unhappy with this B" breakdown, but a genuine, "I can't handle life anymore" breakdown.
Not in my class, but it easily could have been.
He's been a little...off...all semester. And getting progressively more frustrated, more agitated, more angry...leading to more frequent outbursts that disrupt class...but only momentarily. He has cried several times out of anger and frustration at the start of the daily quizzes because he wasn't as prepared as he knew he needed to be.
This is the first time I've encountered this situation and it is disturbing. I care about this student, so I called counseling services when the behavior started and after-class conversations contained phrases like "ready to throw my desk across the room" and "I'm on the edge" and "I don't want to do this anymore." The counselor advised me to suggest to this student that he visit the counseling center for a chance to vent and talk to someone privately who can help with coping skills and just be a kind ear. But if the student's behavior escalates, well, the counselor said...professors have been known to walk students over to the Center.
Tuesday in class, this student was more disruptive than he'd been before. Physically slamming his books, marching across the room in front of me to loudly and angrily sharpen his pencil, making gestures and facial expressions that were angry and agitated. Interrupting other students, making conversational asides that didn't make sense, and contributing almost nonsensical comments to the conversation, causing his classmates to smirk or look at him in confusion.
I didn't know what to do. Should I have dismissed class and walked him to the counseling center? The outburst lasted only ten minutes total and I have 25 other students to consider. I chose to ignore the outburst as best I could and once he calmed down, then I did call on him during the in-class discussion portion. As usual, his offerings were just a bit...off. Not quite on target. But I accepted his contribution and other students picked up the threads and continued discussion.
Moments ago, one of his other English professors came into my office. He had a breakdown in her class this morning. She drove him to the counseling center. We discussed granting him extensions for his work, which I am going to do. We also discussed this strange phenomenon that seems more acute this semester - students under extreme stress and in over their heads. She's seeing it more this semester than ever before (she's been teaching for two decades). I'm noticing it more as well, even being relatively new to this side of the desk.
It is easy for us to dismiss these students as privileged, entitled, lazy, and incapable-by-choice. But my student who finally broke down is not lazy, or privileged, or incapable - he strives for perfection, he has a job and is taking a full and strenuous course load as a senior in order to set himself up to hopefully get a good job post-graduation. He has family problems, one of which is the extraordinary pressure that he perceives his family is putting on him about finishing college. He worries about everything. His performance in class. What his professors think of him. Whether his level of engagement and participation is enough. Whether he is making the right choices.
Perhaps my student is the exception and not the rule. But another of my students in the same class is having severe family issues that is causing her undue distress and is distracting her from her work - and she is most decidedly an A student. And she failed the last quiz outright. Zero questions answered.
I'm beginning to wonder if the economic realities and conditions in our society are increasing the stress on these capable young people. They want so badly to do well and succeed, but they see an untenable future before them, even as they push themselves to work harder, faster, better in order to compete.
I don't know what the root cause is...or if there are multiple causes working simultaneously, but I just can't dismiss this idea that our current economic situation and social attitudes are having a negative effect on our youth.
Not in my class, but it easily could have been.
He's been a little...off...all semester. And getting progressively more frustrated, more agitated, more angry...leading to more frequent outbursts that disrupt class...but only momentarily. He has cried several times out of anger and frustration at the start of the daily quizzes because he wasn't as prepared as he knew he needed to be.
This is the first time I've encountered this situation and it is disturbing. I care about this student, so I called counseling services when the behavior started and after-class conversations contained phrases like "ready to throw my desk across the room" and "I'm on the edge" and "I don't want to do this anymore." The counselor advised me to suggest to this student that he visit the counseling center for a chance to vent and talk to someone privately who can help with coping skills and just be a kind ear. But if the student's behavior escalates, well, the counselor said...professors have been known to walk students over to the Center.
Tuesday in class, this student was more disruptive than he'd been before. Physically slamming his books, marching across the room in front of me to loudly and angrily sharpen his pencil, making gestures and facial expressions that were angry and agitated. Interrupting other students, making conversational asides that didn't make sense, and contributing almost nonsensical comments to the conversation, causing his classmates to smirk or look at him in confusion.
I didn't know what to do. Should I have dismissed class and walked him to the counseling center? The outburst lasted only ten minutes total and I have 25 other students to consider. I chose to ignore the outburst as best I could and once he calmed down, then I did call on him during the in-class discussion portion. As usual, his offerings were just a bit...off. Not quite on target. But I accepted his contribution and other students picked up the threads and continued discussion.
Moments ago, one of his other English professors came into my office. He had a breakdown in her class this morning. She drove him to the counseling center. We discussed granting him extensions for his work, which I am going to do. We also discussed this strange phenomenon that seems more acute this semester - students under extreme stress and in over their heads. She's seeing it more this semester than ever before (she's been teaching for two decades). I'm noticing it more as well, even being relatively new to this side of the desk.
It is easy for us to dismiss these students as privileged, entitled, lazy, and incapable-by-choice. But my student who finally broke down is not lazy, or privileged, or incapable - he strives for perfection, he has a job and is taking a full and strenuous course load as a senior in order to set himself up to hopefully get a good job post-graduation. He has family problems, one of which is the extraordinary pressure that he perceives his family is putting on him about finishing college. He worries about everything. His performance in class. What his professors think of him. Whether his level of engagement and participation is enough. Whether he is making the right choices.
Perhaps my student is the exception and not the rule. But another of my students in the same class is having severe family issues that is causing her undue distress and is distracting her from her work - and she is most decidedly an A student. And she failed the last quiz outright. Zero questions answered.
I'm beginning to wonder if the economic realities and conditions in our society are increasing the stress on these capable young people. They want so badly to do well and succeed, but they see an untenable future before them, even as they push themselves to work harder, faster, better in order to compete.
I don't know what the root cause is...or if there are multiple causes working simultaneously, but I just can't dismiss this idea that our current economic situation and social attitudes are having a negative effect on our youth.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Beyond "The Faculty Lounges"
Before reading further, please check out my latest publication: Book Review in Raging Chicken Press of The Faculty Lounges and Other Reasons You Won't Get the College Education You Pay For
All caught up?
Really?
Come on...it's not long and it's well-written (my bias is showing). ;)
Ok. You get the idea behind this book. Now consider some perspectives from a sampling of my colleagues around the nation. These folks range from adjuncts and instructors to assistant professors and the higher education establishments they hail from include large research universities, public state-funded universities, and smaller regional colleges.
I asked my colleagues the question that got Riley her book contract: Should tenure exist? Interestingly, of the 20 people who responded, six answered "no," 12 answered "yes," and then the responses got fuzzier. Five people said "yes and no," two people didn't know ("hmm") and one person said tenure should exist for university professors, but not high school teachers.
One respondent (who is actively seeking a tenure-track position) currently teaches at a small Southern university and explained her "yes and no" response this way, "I think the tenure system in state universities as it exists could use some revamping. For example, I do have an issue with the notion that once someone has tenure, they have to basically commit a felony offense to be removed. I have, unfortunately, experienced tenured faculty who took advantage of their job security to basically quit being effective in their job. Anyway, not sure what the "best" solution is, but love the discussion."
Another respondent at a large Southern research university said of her uncertainty, "I think the system could use improvements. I wonder if we could figure out a way to value a wider range of intellectual contributions. This may be unique to my experience, but during my process I had to shy away from certain items to match my unit's ideal vita."
Although I was very hard on Riley's demand for abolishing tenure, I admit that she does touch on a subject that is worthy of debate. While the above two academics admitted their concern and uncertainty about the tenure system, some respondents flat-out agreed with Riley's argument based on personal experiences in academia.
One colleague who has a non-tenure-track instructor position at a Northeast state university called tenure an "antiquated system": "Other people do not have such job security. Teaching should be like any other form of employment: Those who work well and are respected should be promoted. Plus, institutions use tenure as a weapon: If one is not on a tenure track, there is no salary increase. Furthermore, if you want to earn tenure, you'd best watch what you say about the administration. I've never had to keep so 'quiet' in all my years of marketing, as well as working in restaurants or hotels."
Perhaps there is something to Riley's argument after all, although I won't go so far as to agree with abolishing tenure. Change is necessary, especially when it comes to a better balance between teaching and research, but change does not always require the death of a system. Or does it?
One respondent at a regional Southern university who is on the tenure-track and close to going up for tenure has a decidedly negative view of the system, listing the following problems:
When I contacted my respondents, I asked them how they defined academic freedom and got an array of responses, but most focused on being able to say what you want in various venues without fear of negative consequences. Following are a sampling of the responses:
"To be able to offer constructive criticism to academic models (university, society, etc), without fear of repercussions."
"Academic freedom is the ability to research and teach controversial topics without having to fear being fired either because too many students complain about the content of your classes or administrators and other faculty have a problem with the content of your research."
"The ability to research and teach ANY topic that contributes to our scientific knowledge or enriches students' lives in a responsible manner regardless of office politics, funding responsibilities, publishing pressures, etc."
When I asked a few of those who support the existence of tenure what their reasons were, the answers focused on protection from politically- or personally-motivated repercussions for teaching or speaking out on a subject or in a way that opposes the administration's position. For instance, one colleague cited an untenured friend who teaches for a well-known university that supports a particularly damaging practice in that state. This person's friend knows that he is risking his job every time he speaks out against this practice. This seems a reasonable fear in a corporate university environment where faculty are held accountable to "the boss" instead of "the greater good," which is more in line with the altrustic goals of a university education.
One colleague explained her support of tenure thusly,
"I think any school can get rid of anybody for some reason if they really tried, but tenure makes the burden of proof much higher on the administration for proving a case as to why someone needs to be removed.
"Another argument in favor of tenure is that having tenure attracts many people to the profession that may not otherwise choose academia. If you think about it, tenure is quickly becoming one of the few perks of our profession that we cannot get anywhere else. The pay is not on par with what other people with our education level can attain and with the budgets being the way they have become we are increasingly put in the position to do our jobs with less resources and little monetary gain. Tenure, once received, is something no one can take away from us and having job security after a certain point in this day in age is one thing that academia can offer over other more lucrative professions."
Another colleague, who is a PhD candidate at a Northeast research university with hopes of landing a tenure-track position, said, "Having only being exposed to one (horribly acrimonious, provincial, and dysfunctional) department, my argument for tenure is simply that it seems the only way in a department like that to be able to focus your efforts on teaching/researching and not constantly covering your ass/kissing ass/ kicking ass."
So if tenure is necessary to protect faculty from the whims of unreasonable administrators and distracting political departmental BS, how could the system be revised or changed to address the legitimate concerns of people who have been hurt or held back by the system? What alternative could be put in place to maintain this level of protection for faculty, but open the doors a bit for promotional opportunities for those who are extremely committed to teaching excellence?
My suggestion for improving the tenure system is to create two "tracks" of tenure - one for teaching professors and one for research professors. The designation would be noted in job ads and reflected in the interview process so that only the professors who truly enjoy and WANT to teach are hired to do so, but whose research responsibilities are either minimal or non-existent (say teaching 80%, university/department/community service 15%, research requirements for tenure 5%).
And universities that value research for grant money and national/international fame can designate certain tracks for research-only professors (say the reverse of the teaching track: 80% research with increased publication requirements to earn tenure, 15% university/dept/community service and 5% teaching, which would allow for perhaps one graduate class per year, but zero undergrad classes) - these would be the professors who students tend to dislike the most - the ones who have zero interest in teaching and make next to no effort to create courses and classroom environments conducive to effective learning.
We have all experienced this classroom and if you teach small classes, you've probably heard your students lament one or two professors who have all but checked out of the teaching process. Instead of passing negative judgment on these folks, why not just change their track designation? That way, even teaching universities can have a certain contingent of faculty whose job it is to research like mad, producing articles, books,and generating money and fame for the university.
That's my suggestion. What's yours?
All caught up?
Really?
Come on...it's not long and it's well-written (my bias is showing). ;)
Ok. You get the idea behind this book. Now consider some perspectives from a sampling of my colleagues around the nation. These folks range from adjuncts and instructors to assistant professors and the higher education establishments they hail from include large research universities, public state-funded universities, and smaller regional colleges.
I asked my colleagues the question that got Riley her book contract: Should tenure exist? Interestingly, of the 20 people who responded, six answered "no," 12 answered "yes," and then the responses got fuzzier. Five people said "yes and no," two people didn't know ("hmm") and one person said tenure should exist for university professors, but not high school teachers.
One respondent (who is actively seeking a tenure-track position) currently teaches at a small Southern university and explained her "yes and no" response this way, "I think the tenure system in state universities as it exists could use some revamping. For example, I do have an issue with the notion that once someone has tenure, they have to basically commit a felony offense to be removed. I have, unfortunately, experienced tenured faculty who took advantage of their job security to basically quit being effective in their job. Anyway, not sure what the "best" solution is, but love the discussion."
Another respondent at a large Southern research university said of her uncertainty, "I think the system could use improvements. I wonder if we could figure out a way to value a wider range of intellectual contributions. This may be unique to my experience, but during my process I had to shy away from certain items to match my unit's ideal vita."
Although I was very hard on Riley's demand for abolishing tenure, I admit that she does touch on a subject that is worthy of debate. While the above two academics admitted their concern and uncertainty about the tenure system, some respondents flat-out agreed with Riley's argument based on personal experiences in academia.
One colleague who has a non-tenure-track instructor position at a Northeast state university called tenure an "antiquated system": "Other people do not have such job security. Teaching should be like any other form of employment: Those who work well and are respected should be promoted. Plus, institutions use tenure as a weapon: If one is not on a tenure track, there is no salary increase. Furthermore, if you want to earn tenure, you'd best watch what you say about the administration. I've never had to keep so 'quiet' in all my years of marketing, as well as working in restaurants or hotels."
Perhaps there is something to Riley's argument after all, although I won't go so far as to agree with abolishing tenure. Change is necessary, especially when it comes to a better balance between teaching and research, but change does not always require the death of a system. Or does it?
One respondent at a regional Southern university who is on the tenure-track and close to going up for tenure has a decidedly negative view of the system, listing the following problems:
- Tenure is just an escape clause that the higher powers can use to "easily" dismiss junior faculty that they don't want.
- Universities now have a clause so that they can dismiss a position/department/section due to financial exigency.
- Tenure has lost its meaning, in my humble opinion.
- Junior faculty should not be put through heck for something that can be taken away.
When I contacted my respondents, I asked them how they defined academic freedom and got an array of responses, but most focused on being able to say what you want in various venues without fear of negative consequences. Following are a sampling of the responses:
"To be able to offer constructive criticism to academic models (university, society, etc), without fear of repercussions."
"Academic freedom is the ability to research and teach controversial topics without having to fear being fired either because too many students complain about the content of your classes or administrators and other faculty have a problem with the content of your research."
"The ability to research and teach ANY topic that contributes to our scientific knowledge or enriches students' lives in a responsible manner regardless of office politics, funding responsibilities, publishing pressures, etc."
When I asked a few of those who support the existence of tenure what their reasons were, the answers focused on protection from politically- or personally-motivated repercussions for teaching or speaking out on a subject or in a way that opposes the administration's position. For instance, one colleague cited an untenured friend who teaches for a well-known university that supports a particularly damaging practice in that state. This person's friend knows that he is risking his job every time he speaks out against this practice. This seems a reasonable fear in a corporate university environment where faculty are held accountable to "the boss" instead of "the greater good," which is more in line with the altrustic goals of a university education.
One colleague explained her support of tenure thusly,
"I think any school can get rid of anybody for some reason if they really tried, but tenure makes the burden of proof much higher on the administration for proving a case as to why someone needs to be removed.
"Another argument in favor of tenure is that having tenure attracts many people to the profession that may not otherwise choose academia. If you think about it, tenure is quickly becoming one of the few perks of our profession that we cannot get anywhere else. The pay is not on par with what other people with our education level can attain and with the budgets being the way they have become we are increasingly put in the position to do our jobs with less resources and little monetary gain. Tenure, once received, is something no one can take away from us and having job security after a certain point in this day in age is one thing that academia can offer over other more lucrative professions."
Another colleague, who is a PhD candidate at a Northeast research university with hopes of landing a tenure-track position, said, "Having only being exposed to one (horribly acrimonious, provincial, and dysfunctional) department, my argument for tenure is simply that it seems the only way in a department like that to be able to focus your efforts on teaching/researching and not constantly covering your ass/kissing ass/ kicking ass."
So if tenure is necessary to protect faculty from the whims of unreasonable administrators and distracting political departmental BS, how could the system be revised or changed to address the legitimate concerns of people who have been hurt or held back by the system? What alternative could be put in place to maintain this level of protection for faculty, but open the doors a bit for promotional opportunities for those who are extremely committed to teaching excellence?
My suggestion for improving the tenure system is to create two "tracks" of tenure - one for teaching professors and one for research professors. The designation would be noted in job ads and reflected in the interview process so that only the professors who truly enjoy and WANT to teach are hired to do so, but whose research responsibilities are either minimal or non-existent (say teaching 80%, university/department/community service 15%, research requirements for tenure 5%).
And universities that value research for grant money and national/international fame can designate certain tracks for research-only professors (say the reverse of the teaching track: 80% research with increased publication requirements to earn tenure, 15% university/dept/community service and 5% teaching, which would allow for perhaps one graduate class per year, but zero undergrad classes) - these would be the professors who students tend to dislike the most - the ones who have zero interest in teaching and make next to no effort to create courses and classroom environments conducive to effective learning.
We have all experienced this classroom and if you teach small classes, you've probably heard your students lament one or two professors who have all but checked out of the teaching process. Instead of passing negative judgment on these folks, why not just change their track designation? That way, even teaching universities can have a certain contingent of faculty whose job it is to research like mad, producing articles, books,and generating money and fame for the university.
That's my suggestion. What's yours?
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Big, Rich, and Classless
Taking a break between cleaning my kitchen and editing photos from a recent session, I decided to TV-surf and stumbled across a jaw-dropping, train-wreck of a show: Big Rich Texas on the Style Network.
The premise of this (un)reality show seems to be rich women in Texas at a particular exclusive country club trying to out-shallow each other and prove to the rest of us how undeserving the wealthy in America are of their money and status. This show actually makes the "Real Housewives" series look substantive. These women are classless, insincere, and reeking in wealthy-bad-behavior stereotypes...think Marie Antoinette's supposed "let them eat cake" attitude...times twenty. Appearance isn't just everything in this twisted world, it's the only thing.
On this particular episode, one rebellious rich girl shocks the club's women with a beloved "Cunt" tattoo on her foot, then gets it removed when her plastic surgery-addicted hottie PhD mommy bribes her with the promise of a lip job. Meanwhile, a new woman tries to join the club, but first has to navigate the volatile and cramped personalities of the other club women while simultaneously ingratiating herself amongst the group - none of whom seem to share one redeeming human quality between them. Looking down their noses openly at "outsiders" and privately at each other, these women epitomize the worst of the top one percent of this nation who possess 90% of the wealth (and all of the tax breaks).
Pompous, hypocritical, judgmental, shallow, classless, and inhumane. This is what our reality TV shows promote. What a lovely image for the rest of the world to despise.
Reality TV just keeps getting worse and worse. Where is originality? Where is true creative thinking? Where is tolerant humanity? You know what would be a fun reality show? Take all of these women and their insufferable offspring and take all of their money away, dump them sans credit cards and designer wardrobe on a street corner in the middle of America, and wish them luck as they have to get a job and navigate people who will naturally abhor them as they try to survive. Now THAT is a reality show I would watch.
I think it's time to storm the wealthy castles of America and start tearing them down.
The premise of this (un)reality show seems to be rich women in Texas at a particular exclusive country club trying to out-shallow each other and prove to the rest of us how undeserving the wealthy in America are of their money and status. This show actually makes the "Real Housewives" series look substantive. These women are classless, insincere, and reeking in wealthy-bad-behavior stereotypes...think Marie Antoinette's supposed "let them eat cake" attitude...times twenty. Appearance isn't just everything in this twisted world, it's the only thing.
On this particular episode, one rebellious rich girl shocks the club's women with a beloved "Cunt" tattoo on her foot, then gets it removed when her plastic surgery-addicted hottie PhD mommy bribes her with the promise of a lip job. Meanwhile, a new woman tries to join the club, but first has to navigate the volatile and cramped personalities of the other club women while simultaneously ingratiating herself amongst the group - none of whom seem to share one redeeming human quality between them. Looking down their noses openly at "outsiders" and privately at each other, these women epitomize the worst of the top one percent of this nation who possess 90% of the wealth (and all of the tax breaks).
Pompous, hypocritical, judgmental, shallow, classless, and inhumane. This is what our reality TV shows promote. What a lovely image for the rest of the world to despise.
Reality TV just keeps getting worse and worse. Where is originality? Where is true creative thinking? Where is tolerant humanity? You know what would be a fun reality show? Take all of these women and their insufferable offspring and take all of their money away, dump them sans credit cards and designer wardrobe on a street corner in the middle of America, and wish them luck as they have to get a job and navigate people who will naturally abhor them as they try to survive. Now THAT is a reality show I would watch.
I think it's time to storm the wealthy castles of America and start tearing them down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)