Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1977-1989 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 19, 1986)
Opinion Student success: whose responsibility ? by Alberta Roper Staff Writer As I researched the story “Student Success Strategies,’’ I found myself pondering the one sided emphasis of the project. It appears that the burden for stu dent success falls mainly on the shoulders of the college faculty and staff. What about the re sponsibility of the incoming stu dent? Looking through the questions on the survey, I wondered why questions were being asked as to whether there should be testing and prerequisites required prior to a student’s acceptance into the class. Why should a student be allowed into a class if they’re not equipped to handle it? Why would a question come up such as, “How do we say ‘no’ to stud ents?” Have the tables been turn ed to such a degree that the stu dent dictates how a college is run? Has a breakdown in the respect for authority caused institutions to be intimidated? Terry O’Basion, who is the ex ecutive director of the League for Innovation of Community Col leges, gave some interesting observations in his speech sum mary from the May conference on student success. I found his comparison of the years 1960, 1970, and a projection for 1990 a good trend indicator. According to O’Banion, col leges in the year 1960 had strong intervention programs, establish ed course prerequisites, had a “probation system in place with a mandatory limit on course load,” and the “student hours of em ployment limited to 20 hours.” By 1970, constraints were all but removed. O’Banion writes, “Students are responsible for self,” have “freedom to explore' and grow without restraints from past failures,” and are “free from institutional intervention.” He further said, “Humanistic education has encouraged remov ing the barriers to learning, i.e. testing, grades, and probation ... do not expose students to their own inadequacies.” Is it possible that our society’s demand for less constraints has not given us more freedom, but has put us in bondage to medio crity? Why should anyone put forth their utmost when doing a half-job gains the same rewards? O’Banion projects for 1990 a pendulum swing back toward more constraints: intervention, testing, “mandatory assessment,” and “ mandatory placement.” Questions posed for considera tion in the Student Success Pro ject included, “What is excellent teaching? Who is an excellent teacher? What is worth learning? How do we know anyone has learned anything?” To these I would add, “What constitutes a teachable student? Who is an ex cellent student? How do we know if anyone has the desire to learn anything? If it’s not worth learn ing, is it worth teaching?” Maybe we need to redefine education as a partnership bet ween two willing and committed adults. Page 2 Point A woman’s place is in the house ? by Dean Grey Editor In the beginning God created man, then as an afterthought he created women. He created women to be the subservient aid to the better cause (once again man). Back then everything was .systematic; man brought home the money and spanked the kids, woman spent the money, cleaned the house, cooked the meals, raised the kids, and cared for the man when he came home from work so that he might be rejuvinated enough by the next day to go back to work and get more money for the Counterpoint by Lyn Marie Thompson Staff Writer So, you think a woman’s place is in the home, eh? Wrong. Try again. A woman’s “place” is wherever she feels most comfor table and happy. That neander thal-like phrase “barefoot, preg nant and in the kitchen” makes my skin crawl! That has got to be one of the most narrow-minded attitudes I know of! In the past women have been dumped on constantly. Their parents married them off as quickly as possible to someone they thought was best for them. Ilie woman’s desires were never once contemplated. She then be came her husband’s slave. What he said went and that was the end of the discussion. She did her du ty and bore his children, and woman to spend. It was a happy time, a simpler life. Every now and then man would go off to war and woman could play the man’s part and go to work. 1 think that was what started the change; women became power hungry, not realizing the important part they played in the betterment of mankind We gave up a lot of our per sonal man stuff to allow them to participate, but they wanted access to all of our traits but ex pected to be treated like a lady at dinner (yet some got pissed when you opened a door for them). Gave to them and they took, now they want us to give while they already have it all. They wanted the choice to ask us to dance, yet wanted to be asked instead. They wanted to play the men’s games (football to name one) and still be treated like a woman (soft and gentle). They wanted to earn their own way, while still taking our money. And we gave. Hell did we give, all the way down to our very rib we gave. We gave them major appli ances, credit cards, and soap operas and they still weren’t satisfied. What did they want? They wanted to get out so we let them do the shopping, but that wasn’t enough. Women felt that they were ready to take their unrightful place in the male workforce, we as men knew bet ter (of course). We knew that women were made to stay home and cook and clean and raise our future, the beloved children, after all they’ve had hundreds to thou sands of years practice and they’re good at it. So in all fairness men must admit that women are better at the menial labor tasks that make up the housekeeping “job” They probably are pretty good at picking berries too. heaven help her if she didn’t give him at least one son. She cleaned his house, washed his clothes, cooked his meals, raised his children, and pleased him as best as she could. But no one ever thought to ask her if she was hap py. For a woman to think about herself, to ask “Is this all there is?” was scandalous. Women just didn’t do those kinds of things. For a woman to use her mind, well really! Women weren’t allowed to attend college because it wasn’t “right.” Why would a woman need to be educated? No one thought she might like to be able to support herself like men. Heaven forbid! Even though it’s taken hund reds of years, women have pro ven many times over that they are capable of competing in the man’s world, and beating men at their own game. Women can be found at the top of corporate ladders now, not just in the secretaries office. Eileen Ford runs one of the world’s most prestigious modeling agencies with an iron fist, has for years, and will for years to come. Women have discovered that they are people too with needs, wants and desires just like men. But now they’re getting more complete educations, supporting themselves, raising children on their own and supporting them as well. Anything a woman wants to do, she does now. Even if it is a scandolous thing to do. Shirlee Muldown races top fuel drag sters with the big boys, and beats them! Society finally is becoming a bit more androgenous. Men are allowed to stay home and cook while women are out in the work force bringing home the bacon. Let’s face it, some women couldn’t cook an edible meal to save their souls. But they can be the toughest people in the business world. There are also men who haven’t the fogg iest idea as to how to balance their checkbook, but can make a hollandaise sauce perfectly lumpless and unseparated. But hey, let’s be fair, there are still a few women who really like be ing housewives. That’s fine, more power to ’em. But my point is that a woman deserves to make her own choice. Wo men are really fantastic people and they should be treated with respect, just like every other human being. They have a right to be happy, to enjoy life, to ex plore their potential, to be themselves. And if you don’t ’elieve me, ask your mom. Enstein got screwed too Einstein was rejected from a university because his entry Contributing Writer Been screwed-over lately? essay was “unintelligible”; Can you think of an instant, Churchill, after saving England within short or long term from Hitler, was fired; Lincoln memory, where you/haven’t re was a hated man, often called ceived credit for your effort, “ape” Lincoln, that is, before he talent, or efficiency; worse yet was shot; Joan of Arc was an instant where you were ac barbecued for her heroism; tually rebuked for a job, al Socrates drank poison for his though well-done by any human wisdom; Jesus was crucified for , measure, was still unacceptable his. to the rigidly bias standard of It is typical of this world to the boss, teacher, parent, friend, enemy, acquaintance or award salt for wounds begot whomever you were attempting from our labors - and more typ ical for our accomplishments, to impress?. If you’ve never experienced no matter how great, to be sub the discomfort of cenzure, are a ject to the unqualified, myopic virgin in the realm of disap criticism of non-creative, square proval, then you’re,possibly (1) pegs. It’s bad enough when a com a robot (2) everybody’s fool (3) a manikin (4) fit to be displayed petent, open-mind is evaluating as a rare specimen in a museum. us, but too often it’s a provin If however, the former is cial, by-the-book stooge, smug more fitting, then you don’t fit; in his square-peg position, con- you suffer from the ghastly temptous of anyone not trapped stigma of being a round peg in in the same stagnant, square an inherently square world. But abyss he’s planted himself. A don’t be dismayed, you’re in person who wouldn’t know quality work if it jumped up prodigious company. The greatest minds in history, and kicked him in his square the beacons who flamed torches head. But don’t fret, if life seems to still shining effulgently to in; spire our spirits, the paragons give you only flack for your at of our civilization, were, in tempt at well-rounded perfec nearly all cases, round pegs tion, then perhaps you’re being screwed-over by small minds at initiated into the ranks of the tempting to jam everything and immortals, and will receive your much-deserved credit after everybody into a neat, square you’re squarely dead. hole. by Scott Wyland A snooze is too valuable to lose Letter to the Editor: Napping between classes is classical student behavior. At every university I’ve attended, students could be found sleeping on couches, at study carrels in library, on the grass, etc. I agree that we don’t want non-students making camp in the community center (which is what Stan Johnson objects to), but let’s not take the extreme step of removing the comfortable furniture in the vain expectation that this will keep students from snatching a few zzz’s Yours truly, Marlene Tufts Psychology Instructor' The Print The Print aims to be a fair and impartial newspaper covering the college community. Opinions expressed in The Print do not necessarily reflect thoseof the college administration, faculty, Associated Student Govern ment or other members of The Print staff. Articles and information published in The Print can be reprinted only with permission from the Student Publications Office. The Print is a weekly publication distributed each Weds, except for Finals Week. Clackamas Community College, 19600 S. Molalla Ave., Oregon City, Oregon 97045. Office: Trailer B. Telephone: 657-8400, ext. 309. Editor-In-Chief: Dean Grey Entertainment Editor: Thad Kreisher Sports Editor: Christopher Curran Copy Editor: Bret Hodgert Cartoonist: Smantha Storm, Keith Casper Darkroom Tech: Juan Callahan, Amy Clifford, Jeff Schoessler Advertising Manager: Jim Brown Advertising Sales: Michelle Miller, Stephani Veff Office Manager: Stephani Veff Staff Reporters: Marie Stoppelmoor, Alberta Roper Layout Staff: Melody Wiltrout, Tracie Watterberg, Scott Wyland, MaryPrath, Jolenne Kippes Photo Editor: Lyn Thompson Typesetter: Crystal Penner' — I Advisor: Linda Vogt I Gackamas Community College I