The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 63, No. 42, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 11, 1976 Page: 3 of 16
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Rice University Woodson Research Center.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Clear thinking, reasoning not emphasized in Rice education
To the editor:
"Where are we going?" was
the title chosen for the recent
Rice convocation—an event
which has already been
forgotten by most of the
student body. The question
was asked in the particular
context of professional
education at the undergrad-
uate level, but I would argue
that it has wider relevance to
the Rice situation. Where is
Rice going as a university?
What are our long-range goals
and plans?
In 1965 Rice published a 10
Year Plan which looked at the
University situation as it was
then and projected a set of
aims for 1975. It was argued in
that report that Rice had vast
untapped potential and that it
could go from being a good
regional school to being a
great university on the
national or international level.
The If) Year Plan purported to
set forth a step-by-step process
by which Rice could achieve
that level of quality and
reputation. The possibility of
Rice becoming a truly great
university engendered a
spirit of confidence which
carried over at least until 1970.
However, conditions changed,
the aims set for Rice changed,
and the guiding ideals of 1965
were largely forgotten. It is not
my purpose here to dwell on
what could have been. Rice is
clearly in a very different
situation now. Nonetheless,
the question remains, where
are we going?
Idealistic views
During the late 1960's and
early 1970's one constantly
heard reference to the
increasing brightness and
sophistication of the young.
The new generation was
supposed to be the best
educated of all time. How
quickly things change.
Suddenly, with the objective
evidence offered by falling test
scores and the like, the failures
of elementary and secondary
education are becoming a
national scandal. I would
argue that the whole idea of a
swelling population of
intelligent people was a myth
all along. Actually, the schools
then and now seem to be
producing few people who are
intelligent in any funda-
mental sense.
What is the fundamental
basis of true intelligence? It
must have to do with the
thinking abilities one may
command, not the amount of
information one has memor-
ized. The following questions
may be used as a test of true
intelligence.
Can a person make effective
use of the information he has
available at anytime? Does he
have the methods or habits of
thought which allow him to
sift through information and
arrive at p new propositions?
Are these new propositions
really implied by the
information he has on hand?
Is a person willing to display
his methods of reasoning for
the inspection and under-
standing of others? Does a
person willingly place ideas on
the line for criticism? Will a
person listen and accept
validly reasoned criticism by
others? Is a person sufficiently
articulate that he can find
others willing to communicate
with him?
Lack of logical reasoning
By these standards, the
actual number of intelligent
people (even at Rice) is
appallingly low. I will not
dwell on the relative inability
of students to discuss issues
intelligently, according to
recognized methods of
systematic discussion, as this
is evident to all. The
propensity of students to voice
opinions based only on private
feelings is truly incredible.
When one asks for the logical
arguments supporting such
conclusions, one is usually met
with a blank stare, a string of
cliches or a change of subject.
Clear thinking and reason-
ing are simply not being
emphasized in school. Few
students know anything about
the rudiments of logic and
reasoning. Many Rice
freshmen report that during
high school they were never
asked to write papers longer
than four pages in length and
very few of those. The few that
they did write received little
criticism, and that that there
was was based on questions of
style or fact. Reasoning
processes themselves were
never subjected to analysis.
The situation at Rice
appears little better. Offerings
include esoteric courses in
mathematical logic, statistics,
probability theory and the like,
but these courses are hardly
relevant to the issue because
they rarely generalize from
specific analytic solutions to
more general modes of reason
and argument. Besides, most
students, myself included,
would clearly be out of their
depth in these courses. As a
result, the skills of careful
reasoning, analysis and
disputation are nowhere
emphasized. And, in turn, the
abilities of students to write
and speak clearly and
coherently are also deterior-
ating.
Basic courses required
Prior to the inauguration of
the present distribution
system at Rice, students were
required to take basic courses
in English, history, math-
ematics and natural science
during the freshman year.
This requirement served to
inculcate some basic know-
ledge of Western civilization
and to encourage and enhance
logical modes of thinking and
discussion. While methods of
reasoning may not have been
the central emphasis of any of
these courses, at least they did
require that students read
widely, develop certain
analytic skills and write
papers in diverse areas. This
may not have been the best
system for educating true
intelligence, but it worked
beter than the one we have
now.
Today it is possible for an
engineer to get a Rice degree
without ever writing essays of
any length or for a social
science major to never take a
single course in an analytic
laboratory science.
I do not advocate going back
to the old system. I do not
think that would be possible.
But, something must be done.
Learning calls for communi-
cation, open-mindedness, a
willingness to experiment, and
step-by-step analysis and
discussion. It may be argued
that these skills cannot solve
all problems, but clearly they
can be helpful in solving
many. Today, the vast
majority of Rice students do
not control even these basic
skills.
This essay began with the
question of greatness and the
university. I cannot now offer
a complete definition of the
great university, but I would
argue that a necessary, though
not a sufficient, condition for
true greatness is an edu-
cational setting which
encourages or even demands
that students develop true
intelligence as defined above.
The great university will offer
much more than this, but
without this minimal con-
dition no university can be
more than mediocre.
Some possible solutions
Clearly, Some Rice students
achieve this and much more,
but the number is needlessly
low. In an earlier essay I
suggested two minimal
changes which I believe might
increase the number of truly
intelligent Rice graduates.
First, a basic core course that
would be required of all
freshmen, could explore just
these issues I have been
discussing. Second, the senior
thesis at the end of four years
would be a chance for students
to apply these basic modes of
intellection at length and in
great detail to a specialized
topic of personal interest.
Rice still has much of the
potential it had in 1965. It
could set the education of truly
intelligent students as one of
its goals. The changes I
propose would cost very little
and take only limited effort—
certainly a lot less than
creating new majors, new
departments or new profes-
sional schools. But, certainly
after all those class hours and
all that investment, a Rice
graduate has a right to the
possession of these essential
abilities.
Jeffrey Karl Ochsner
c/o School of Architecture
Rice University
Houston, Texas 77001
Sexism draws apology; it was intentional
To the editor:
As the person responsible
for the comic strip "Dr.
Borologist," I was particularly
distressed by Kathy Collmer's
recent letter to the Thresher.
She stated that I have
dehumanized women and,
more generally, people with
my portrayal of a buxom
woman. She interpreted the
character to reflect the
stereotype of women every-
where, that of a sex object.
To the latter charge I plead
guilty, to her other charges I
plead innocent. The character
in question is intended as a
stereotype. However, it
appears that Ms. Collmer has
failed to notice one detail—the
strip is composed entirely of
stereotypes. When one realizes
and sees my reason for this,
one should realize the purpose
of my "sexism."
As mentioned, Ms. Collmer
has not noticed the other
stereotypes contained in "Dr.
Borologist." Dr. Sandy Yago
represents the typical cold,
logical scientist that so many
of us have cheered on as Mr.
Spock. The villain has been
given stereotyped character-
istics: a menacing face, beady
eyes, and a fat body. Dr.
Borologist himself is merely
the image of the Ail-American
Weanie. With characters such
as these, it is only natural that
I complete the cast with
another stereotype, Sandra
Squeezebox.
I did not intend to create a
platform for sexist comments
when I created "Dr. Borolo-
gist." I do not consider myself
a sexist and would not print a
chauvinistic stereotype in a
serious work. My purpose in
drawing "Dr. Borologist" is to
present a gentle satire of bad
science fiction and to provide
some fun for Rice weanies,
myself included. I derive a
good deal of pleasure from
drawing my own cartoon and
seeing it printed in the school
newspaper. It is simple-
minded escapism for me;
nothing more, nothing less.
I apologize to Ms. Collmer
for having offended her and I
apologize to all others who
were likewise offended. I
would ask, however, that these
persons accept "Dr. Borolo-
gist" as a trivial comic strip
devoid of contemporary social
comment. Jeff Kerr
Lovett '79
POW
JF&R F'-OR
R5RPf
<MG£Sp
looue
OF QWR
BOSIUGSS.
WAr WUBies WO
HOST AdCVT AMERICA
TOPAV? ItOFl-AV OK) ?
uvemplowbut ?
&0S\U6 p
me
OF
WR.
dusi-
ms.
QO> W THIUK
tfiwm FAVORS
7R6 RUSS/AfOS ^
(00)6 OF
0USIIO£SS
Micu vo iiCu see
AS A 6gemR w
TO tJAVOUAL SeCVRrV?
TH£ OA OR A FR66
pRess?
tootoe
Of ^
VOW?
W W TH^TH^
"D (WACV
& IMPORTANT
THAiO The RiaiT ID
PUBLIC
OTMO)
POLLS?
(00£ OF
t/CUR
busiuks.
OK.TWV
Asfet?
FCfc IT
CUT F«4> MA
u)ei
GO
6ACK
TO
MAKIU5
IT UP.
119
the rice thresher, thursday, march 11, 1976 — page 3
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Brewton, Gary. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 63, No. 42, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 11, 1976, newspaper, March 11, 1976; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245282/m1/3/?q=%22%22~1&rotate=90: accessed July 12, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.