Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 13, 1966)
Oregon Daily Emerald Opinions expressed on the editorial page are those of the Emerald and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the ASUO or the University. Opinions expressed in signed columns are those of the writer. PHIL SEMAS, Editor ANNETTE BUCHANAN Managing Editor LARRY LANGE News Editor WILBUR BISHOP JR. Business Manager CLIFF SANDERLIN Editorial Page Editor University of Oregon, Eugene. Thursday. October 13, 1966 Stadium Donors Merit Choice Seats The ASUO Senate will probably vote today on a bill on studeut seating in the new stadium. Unless they are very careful, the senators will wind up looking very late and even more ungrateful. As it was presented to the Senate last week the bill read in part: . when the stadium is completed and functioning, there shall be no preferential seating of faculty, administrators, groups or individuals over the seating of students . . . Apparently the Senate is getting all excited about rumors that students are going to wind up sitting in the end zone while the people who gave money to build the stadium get all the good seats. Before they vote, we invite the senators to look at the facts. First of all. the stadium is being financed from $1.4 mil lion in private gifts. $900,000 from Athletic Department funds, which is all or part student fees, depending on whose viewpoint you take. That means that the people who gave that $1.4 million contributed over half the cost so that students will be able to attend home games in Eugene without having to travel to Portland every year. Since they gave that money, we think those people deserve some prefer ential seating. Second, the Senate is about six months too late with its concern. Indeed, the present Senate concern flies in the face Of a bill passed by last year’s Senate recommending that no additional student fees be used. In order to comply with that request (and it was a request we supported whole heartedly). the University had to get money from donors. It was stated at the time that one of the selling points for getting donors would be to offer preferences in seating. There was no howl of indignation at the time, so it seems a little out of place now. Third, and most important, there is no reason why stu dents can’t have 50-vard-line seats, even though donors $re also given mid-field seats. There are a maximum of 2,000 donors, meaning a maximum of 4.000 seats. But many of those people won't take all their options every year, which means there'll be less than that number. In any case, it should be possible to give those people 50-vard-line seats and still give students plenty of good seats. The Senate should make it clear that students deserve good seats. But there's no reason to go around with a chip Qn our shoulder about the people who made the stadium possible. ^ /KM / ■jmkl /wsuoR AMO AU/£S 1 'tu/g ♦pouglf SOUTA'R^ ANYONE f" MW- • V-VVM , ,/joint vSoren&imn ru ..••hum—»ni »*« Climate of Classroom Often Poses Threat Editor’s Note: This Is the fourth in a series describing the experiences of Emerald Associate Editor Nonii Borenstein at a “Summer Seminar on Issues in Higher Education." sponsored by the United States Student Press Association (USSPA). The seminar attended by 16 college newspaper editors and two admin istrators was held at St. John’s College in Annapolis, Maryland. Dave Bradford was the only guest speaker who was more effected by the airline strike than the USSPA Seminar. The time Bradford, a psychology student at the University of Michigan, was to spend at Annapolis he spent instead at an airport waiting for a plane to take him there. But Bradford did influence the tenor and direction of the seminar through his 12 page paper—"An Analysis of the College Clnssroom.” The paper is based on the thesis that college classrooms are not structured and organized in a way that makes them the most effec tive learning settings. Not only does Bradford describe what he feels is wrong with the “structure” of learning, but he advocates a new system—"student or group oriented learning"—which he feels will go a long way to correcting the situation. Bradford's first objection to the “structure” as it now stands is that the professor makes all or most of the meaningful decisions— what will be covered in lectures, the reading list, what is "right or wrong” on the exams, how to handle disciplinary problems, bore dom, and topics for discussion. ALLOWS PASSIVE ROLE This in itself is not so bad because most of the power and influ ence in Uie classroom must rest on the teacher if he is to carry out all of these responsibilities. Bradfords strongest objection is that the structure of most classes allows the students to play only a fairly passive role. Why? Because the student feels prime responsibility for himself. The decisions he makes are usually those that effect only him. Thus, he feels only a minor responsibility for others in the class or for the progress of the class as a whole. Bradford also notes that the conversation in most classrooms is teacher-centered and it is the professor who determines the “cli mate" of the group. He points out that even in seminars where the professor does not talk as much, the discussions usually flow between the prof and the students and less among the students. And it is rarely, Bradford notes, that a student makes procedural comments such as suggesting that it is time to move on to another topic. Students are usually asking for information or giving it in response to the instructor’s questions. As for the climate of the class, Bradford contends that it is more often competitive than co-operative. Many students feel that the climate of the classroom poses more of a feeling of personal threat than of acceptance of their ideas. To support his position, Bradford says that students are more apt to “shoot each other down than to build on a position that someone else has developed. TOO MUCH ON INFORMATION This competition comes not only from the grading system which pits students against each other, but from the attitudes of some instructors. Although many teachers are in favor of the idea of students helping each other in the abstract, Bradford says many are often “hesitant about building a feeling of co-operation and we-ness among students.” Another characteristic of the teacher-centered system which has been widely debated by Bradford and other interested students and educators is the area of learning itself. Many feel that it concen trates too much on information and getting the right answer— instead of on attitudes, or how to apply what you have learned in a psych class. Bradford’s paper questions not only what happens in the average classroom but the assumption that the classroom has to be organ ized along traditional lines because of how students act. He, along with many student “educational activists" across the country feel that it may be more accurate to say that students act the way they do because of the structure of the classroom. If the structure is changed, they contend that “not only would there be higher motivation and greater commitment by students but there would actually be more learned—and what is learned would not be as quickly forgotten.” Emerald Editor All letter* to the editor must be typewritten and double spaced. Letters must not exceed 300 words und must be signed in ink, Riving the class and major of the writer. Those deal ing with one subject and per taining to the University or Ku gene community will be given preference. The Emerald re serves the right to edit letters for style, grammar, punctuation, and potentially libelous content. Letters not meeting these cri teria and those which are mimeo graphed or otherwise obvious duplicates will be returned. * * * The Creation Emerald Editor: How student parking was usurped with five easy words: On the first day God made the heavens and the earth, the sun and the moon. On the sec ond day God made man and the institution. His greatest good. On the third day God made the faculty and the staff and students just for measure. On the fourth day God made the parking lot and the automobile; all could park freely And on the fifth day God rest ed. for His work was good. Henceforth man would rule the institution with equality for all. On the sixth day man made registration lines to facilitate student enrollment; he created turmoil. On the seventh day man made the faculty meeting and the student government. The for mer’s rule was good On the eighth day man made the park ing citation to demonstrate his omnipotence. He segregated stu dents from stalf. On the ninth day man closed four student lots because there was a net increase of 120 new instructors. And on the tenth day man rested, for he undid in four days what God did in the same and had empty lots to spare. (P.S. Any students dissatis fied with parking arrangements please let it be known.) Ralph Jones Junior, pre-med. Oregon Daily Emerald Noml Borensteln, Associate Editor Dave Barontl, Sports Editor Maxine Elliott, Feature Editor Mike rancher, Assistant News Editor Tom Thompson, Photo Editor Jay Tlllapaugh and Steve Dlmeo, Entertainment Editors Editorial Board: Phil Sernas, Cliff San derlln, Annette Buchanan, Larry Lange, Noml Borensteln. Maxine Elliott, Dave Barontl, Vance Welty, Bob Holmes, Uobln Tuttle, Gary Barnes, Chuck Pruitt, Tom Nash, Dave McCloskey, Roger Leo, Spen cer Block, Jean Snider. Counselor Orientation Article ‘Left Much To Be Desired’ Editor’s Note: Jeffry Cook is a graduate in business and one of the dormitory counselors inter viewed by Emerald Associate Editor No mi Borenstein for an article printed in the October 6 edition. By JEFFRY J. COOK I would like to comment on the article concerning counselor orientation that was in your Oc tober 6 issue of the Emerald. It seems to me that Miss Nomi Borenstein obviously has much to learn about ethics and profes sionalism as far as her efforts in journalism are concerned. The style and wording of her article on counselor orientation left much to be desired. I also found several other faults with the article. First of all, Miss Borenstein implied that she had talked to counselors after we had had stu dents in the dorms for two weeks. But she called me and several other counselors at the end of new student week and the first part of the week that classes started, and not two weeks after students had moved in. Also, I feel that Miss Boren stein conveyed many of her own feelings in the article. She attended sessions of coun selor orientation and sat in on orientation group discussions. Thus, I feel much of what she reported came from her own feelings and impressions of the orientation and not all from pro fessional interviewing of coun selors. When Miss Borenstein called on me to talk about this year’s orientation, I informed her that because of delays in my travel schedule I was only able to attend the last day and a half of training. Thus, I told her I felt unqualified to comment on this year’s orientation. Furthermore, I told her it would not be proper for me to comment on such mat ters as I had to be concerned about my position with the Hous ing Office. I finally did agree to answer some of Miss Borenstein’s gen eral questions about my position as a counselor if I felt that the questions were not of a contro versial nature. I also told her I would answer such questions only if my name was not used in the article, and only if I was in no way quoted. This, she promised, would be the case. Obviously she did not keep her word. Furthermore, Miss Borenstein wrote her article in such a manner as to make what I said and what other counselors said fit into what she wanted her ar ticle to convey. I would agree that I am most concerned about quiet hours and study condi tions in my dorm, but her phras ing of this would lead one to believe this is the “only” rule I am concerned about rather than this is the rule I am most concerned about. I found myself misquoted as well as quoted out of context in the article. As seems to be (Continued on faye 7)
