opinion
glenn boettcher
even editors get the blues
So what’s so great about a college diploma?
Everybody's got one or is working on one, but
a degree no longer equals a job or — more impor
tantly — an education.
While our out-of-control economy continually
erodes the "job security” an undergraduate de
gree once insured, increasing numbers of
graduates with advanced degrees are being
turned away by prospective employers because
they’re overqualified.
The only college graduates who seem to get
jobs are the ones who compile -statistics on the
dismal unemployment rate for their fellow
graduates.
Maybe a college degree can’t live up to the
image created for it in the late 1950s by the
short-sighted sellers of education who told us
going to college meant a well-paying job. But the
huge structure of higher education that continues
to support this myth still offers honest-to-good
ness education to those who don’t tire of waiting
for the real classes, the real teachers, the real
texts — and financial aid.
Some of these people aren’t even seeking a
degree. They’ll settle instead for just an education.
After all, a degree and an education aren’t neces
sarily the same thing.
The two often are compatible, but for many
the degree gets in the way of the education.
Examples of this hit the media with a wallop every
few years: College graduates can’t write, they
can’t read, they can’t balance their checkbooks,
etc.
The institutions invariably bear the blame for
the resulting public outcry, despite the reality that
no college student is forced to settle for anything
less than a good education. The mythical propor
tions of the degree continues to obscure its real
size in the minds of those college students who
stake their futures on graduation rather than
education.
The benefits of a degree may be declining, but
the benefits of an education continue to accrue,
even for the unemployed college graduate. The
skills to pursue learning outside the classroom
and critically assess communication of any kind
are invaluable.
Graduates who find their degrees won’t get
them jobs should feel ripped off by the system that
sold them a faulty product. But students who don’t
make sure they get an education to accompany
their degree have lost more than a job.
i
vours
Will feminists win?
Will feminists win? The letter in regard
to the feminist role and their expecta
tions (“Feminists will will,” Monday) left
me with a very disturbed feeling. The
tone in which it carried led me to believe
this individual would hardly be satisfied
with dignity and respect on the part of
men towards women. The intense bitter
ness suggests the contrary. Perhaps a
reversal of the stereotypical roles would
be suitable
The letter expressed sentiments re
flecting components of the various atti
tudes we are striving to overcome. I do
not disagree with the importance of the
feminist voice and certainly not the goals
of the feminist. But rather the manner in
which it is voiced in this particular case.
Attacking a portion of the population
(that has exhibited behavior which
clearly serves to exacerbate disgusting
and dangerous roles for men and
women) in such a hostile way is
ridiculous. Even worse is to focus on
such people. The problem is much more
complex than looking at a “few little
fellows." It is quite obvious that for many
women values such as power and re
spect hardly take precedence over the
personality and physical characteristics
that were so elegantly mentioned
My points are simple. Men and women
are in this together. They all contribute to
perpetuate the current situation in some
manner. The direction of effect cannot
be determined and this must be remem
bered.
Secondly, that the means by which we
must go about this arduous battle be
given special attention. To achieve the
goals a loud and strong voice is impera
tive so that all can hear. But this voice
must be wise to be effective.
We can all benefit and we can all win
David Greenwood
Junior, psychology
Unfounded attack
I find it very strange that Eric Engelman
thought he knew his "facts” well enough
to attack Prof. Sanders (“Open eyes”,
Monday) when it is obvious that he has
never taken a class from him. I, however,
am a veteran of seven courses taught by
Prof. Sanders and was his graduate
teaching assistant last year. Not at any
time did he teach or imply “that there is
no God who judges sin or man” (Mr.
Engelman might consider including
women, for Dr Sanders is a feminist). He
does teach, though, that only some, but
not all, prophecies were written "after
the fact;” for example, the so-called
prophecies in “Daniel”, chapters 7-11,
which cease to be historically accurate
after 11:39 One might surmise that the
author of this part of "Daniel" unques
muMEBBE
VON
LIDDLE
VI RETAP,.
\
AND
ONE
LITTLE
SECRET
Wing.,,
AND ONE
LITTLE
PARDON.
AND 0l€
urnas#
WR
MWKINP
tionably believed that the successful and
antogonistic Antiochus IV Epiphanes
soon would control Egypt; in fact, Antio
chus did not. Some prophecy, indeed.
What Dr. Sanders does teach is how to
examine the evidence objectively and to
form one’s own unprejudiced idea of the
meaning and purpose of the Hebrew and
Christian scriptures. Often the conclu
sions do not conform to what is taught in
Sunday school, but this does not make
them ‘myths.”
One last point: I would like Mr. Engel
man to explain how the Hebrew Scrip
tures “adequately predict...the most vis
cious (sic) war yet.” I cannot understand
how weapons can survive horrendous
battles of this “immenent (sic), present
day war,” and then, when the war is over,
provide the victors with an immense
amount of firewood (Ezek. 39:9-10). A
wooden tank, a wooden airplane, a
wooden bomb?!? — or will our modern
warriors be fighting with, as Ezekiel says,
"shields and bucklers, bows and arrows,
handpikes and spears?”
Susan Plass
GTF, history
More comics flap
It has become quite apparent that the
Oregon Daily Emerald has stooped to the
lowest possible professional standards.
Last term, my fellow students and I
were led to a false sense of security when
it was hinted that “Peanuts” would re
turn for winter term. Something to the
effect that "Sparrow”, the pathetic suc
cessor to the bright “Peanuts”, couldn’t
be eradicated until the end of last term.
Now we are asked to embrace “Mixed
Nuts", the even more detestable suc
cessor to “Sparrow". Well, I won’t have
it!
Let’s just flaunt the fact that we are a
government-subsidized paper and don’t
have to worry about trivial little things like
reader opinion and increased sales. I
suggest that you commission a graphic
artist to rework your masthead to read
“Oregon Daily Emerald — We don’t care,
we don’t have to.”
“Peanuts" is Americana at its flag
waving best. Snoopy, Charlie Brown,
Pigpen and Peppermint Patty are all
touchable friends. We've all known in
dividuals like the people they represent,
so relating to their triumphs and their
tragedies is easy.
Some people escape through “Gener
al Hospital” or “All My Children”. Is it
wrong to escape through a beagle and
children who never grow up? Of course
it’s not.
In these times of skyrocketing infla
tion, erratic stock exchanges and
demanding terrorists, it was nice to
count on Charles Schultz for a morning
chuckle.
If demonstrations weren’t so popular
at this university, I’d encourage the
student body to storm your lofty offices
and demand results. As it is, all we can do
is harass you with letters to the mindless
editor.
Although Snoopy and Charlie Brown
may be on vacation somewhere in the
Bahamas, they will never be forgotten by
truly devout fans.
Geoff Grigsby
Junior, Marketing
Useless letter
I can’t decide whether Eric Engel
man’s letter ("Open eyes”, Monday) was
intended to amuse, confuse or anger
those who read it. it succeeded in doing
all three by turns, all for the same reason:
there is not a single shred of useful
information or logical argument in it, and
it was infused with a great degree of
baseless arrogance.
A graduate student who dares to chal
lenge a recognized scholar in a field
greatly removed from his own, and who
cannot effectively use the English lan
guage to even begin to do so, is pos
sessed of an extreme presumptuous
ness. I strongly suggest that he look up
the words “fact” and “myth”, not to
mention “explanations'’ and “pro
phecies”, and then use them as they are
meant to be used.
Little need be said about his ar
guments — and I use the word loosely —
except to point out that, as every student
of the subject from the Bible to Nos
tradamus and beyond is aware, pro
phecy is the most elastic of materials,
and its inherent ambiguity can be
stretched to fit almost any specific pur
pose. Periods of peace during the last
few thousand years have been practical
ly non-existent; the significance of ‘an
cestral voices prophesying war’ is little
greater than that of my predicting that
the sun will rise tomorrow.
I could not make head nor tail of the
rest of his diatribe, except to guess that it
is Mr. Engleman’s position that a scholar
who does not accept every last assertion
drawn from those nebulous Hebrew
Scriptures as The Truth, immutable and
incontestable, is a ciosed-minded
pedant of some other century teaching
myths in preference to facts (as if “fact”
were a relevant word in Mr. Engelman’s
arguments.) I suggest that, nascent phy
sicist or not, Mr. Engleman would not
know a real fact if it bit him, and that is the
disintegration of his own personal myths
which frightens him — as much as his
know-nothing attitude amuses, con
fuses, angers and frightens me.
Michael Stamm
Graduate secretary, English
_ <4 A