The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 75, No. 18, Ed. 1 Friday, February 5, 1988 Page: 2 of 20
twenty pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
2 Friday. February 5,1988 THRESHER Opinion
Desperately seeking substance
IHfWE FULL GWFIDLWC6. W MY TOTAL INMXBJC£.
Distribution courses
should be clarified
Some seniors, thinking they had fulfilled distribution requirements,
were surprised this year to learn that the courses they took don't count
toward distribution. That is their fault for not checking the list of
courses approved for distribution. But the university could prevent any
further confusion by scrapping the list of approved courses and making
most courses acceptable for distribution in the various departments.
In early 1985, the university adopted new rules for determining
which courses satisfy distribution requirements. Since that time, a
committee has produced a list of courses that satisfy distribution re-
quirements; in any given department, some courses satisfy distribution
requirements while others do not
The list, however, is so arbitrary that it is laughable. "Twentieth
Century British Fiction" is acceptable for distribution. "Eighteenth
Century British Fiction" is not. "The Presidency" counts, but "Con-
gress" doesn't "Plant Biology" is for distribution, but not "Animal Bi-
ology," "Women and Family in the U.S. South" won't count, but
"Women in Early Modern Europe" will. The list goes on and on.
The committee that proposed the changes recommended for distribu-
tion credit those courses they felt would "provide exposure to the
fundamentals of the field, be representative of the discipline, be acces-
sible to non-majors, and provide balance of breadth and depth." With
that guide in mind, all courses that make significant use of the theory
and method common to their department ought to count toward
distribution.
One of the main aims of the 1985 distribution requirements was
cracking down on "cross-course distribution," or courses listed as
fulfilling distribution requirements in several departments. Eliminating
credit in more than one area was a smart move; distribution is intended
to give students a familiarity with different fields, and cross-listed
courses were not really representative of any one of the fields in which
they were listed.
For the same reasons, the few courses that should not count for
distribution are those with approaches clearly different from the ap-
proach of the department as a whole, and should be clearly labeled as
"Not acceptable for distribution." The "Statistical Methods" course in
the psychology department is an example of such a course, as its
material relates to quantitative and computer methods more than
psychological theory.
Although the current distribution course list eliminates some of the
courses which clearly should not be accepted as giving a broad
background, itpenalizes those students who prefer to take challenging
classes outside their major fields. Some courses apparently are consid-
ered too specialized to give a broad background and teach a student
unfamiliar with the subject.
Without a doubt, many students are not capable of taking upper-level,
strongly focused courses in some of the social sciences and humanities
departments. Some students, on the other hand, have better back-
grounds in certain fields outside their majors and benefit more from
taking more rigorous courses that demand disciplined application to a
subject. Specialized courses in an area of particular interest to a student
provide an opportunity for him to apply thought systems of a field, and
learn far more than he could in an "accessible" survey course.
Courses that would be accessible to most non-majors could be
highlighted as "highly recommended for distribution." This way, a
student with little or no knowledge of a field could choose a course that
would not be too intimidating.
Able students, towever, should be able to receive distribution credit
for advanced courses for $fiich they are prepared. They should not be
limited by the experience of others.
This sysyem of labeling classes would clarify which classes are not
acceptable for distribution. At the same time, it would help steer
students toward courses that fit their interests and backgrounds, and
provide some incentive for students who have an intense interest in
fields outside their majors.
The secret to success in American
Presidential politics is out, and the
magic formula is just one word.
Eyebrows.
Yes, eyebrows. Michael Dukakis
has thick bushy ones, and Richard
Gephardt wishes he did.
Let me explain. You see,
everyone's been wondering what
Gephardt's secret is. How did the
Representative from Missouri sud-
denly vault from a third place position
behind Dukakis and Paul Simon to
take the lead among Democrats in
polls for the Iowa caucuses?
Representative Marvin Leath of
Texas casually spilled the beans last
week while campaigning for
Gephardt. He said that Gephardt's
newfound success was due, at least in
part, to his doing something about his
eyebrows.
Gephardt's blond eyebrows are
supposed to be a political disadvan-
tage. "With the bright television
lights, the upper half of his face tends
to wash out," said Laura Nichols, a
Gephardt assistant
SPANNING THE HEDGES
by Michael Raphael
So Gephardt's aides began drag-
ging out an eyebrow pencil to darken
their man's brow whenever he ap-
peared on television or filmed a
commercial. At the same time,
Gephardt surged in the polls.
Monday's New York Times ran a
story on Gephardt's eyebrows and the
entire "eyebrow issue," including
pictures to compare his blond features
to the dark Greek ones that Dukakis
sports.
Dukakis has "the most wonderful,
manly eyebrows of anyone who has
ever run for President," said Robert
Squier, a consultant. Francis O'Brien,
Dukakis's press secretary, said his
campaign is "happy with our eye-
brows; we think our eyebrow policy is
under control."
Hold on aminute. Eyebrow policy?
Eyebrow issue'? This is the Presiden-
tial campaign of the world's most
advanced and most powerful coun-
try?
We've heard about Simon's huge
earlobes, Gary Hart's big ears, and
Bruce Babbitt's strange resemblance
to comedian Tom Posten.
And through all this, even after
boning up on the eyebrow issue, I still
don't know which candidate to sup-
port. No candidate (save Jesse
Jackson and Pat Robertson) seems to
represent anything much beyond
himself.
The campaign's focus on personal
qualities is usually attributed to a lack
of substantial issues. But there's a
better explanation based on the theory
that an outgoing President sets the
stage for the new election.
Ronald Reagan, the Presidential
embodiment of form over function, is
setting the stage for this election. The
people and the press are searching for
a National Symbol to replace Reagan.
see Policy, page 4
Student argues against monitors
To the editor:
The student monitor system that
took effect last weekend is expected
to move the alcohol policy in the di-
rection of student enforcement and
take pressure off the Campus Police.
It appears instead that it will accom-
plish neither goal, and may actually
create more problems than it solves.
First, the proponents of the new
system have said it will give students
a say in how the alcohol policy is
followed. How is this possible when
the monitors for the program are
chosen by the college president and
master, and the identities of the moni-
tors are unknown to the student body?
Only a select group of the student
population participates. Most ridicu-
lous of all, the administration does
not believe students ages 18 to 20 are
mature enough to observe the rules
without hidden supervision, yet some
of the same students are deemed re-
sponsible enough to proctor the ac-
tions of others.
It was also claimed that the monitor
system will take pressure off the
Campus Police. How is this accom-
plished when police continue to at-
tend parties and make reports? When
accused by students of filing a faulty
report, will police force members say,
"You cannot hold me accountable for
this fine because it may have been one
or more of your fellow students who
filed that report." It seems students
will not even know who to confront
when they have been judged unfairly.
Beyond the dubious advantages of
the new system, many unexpected
problems could arise in the choice of
anonymous monitors. The integrity
of any student willing to take part in
spying and snitching on fellow stu-
dents is questionable. Under the guise
of anonymity, these monitors will
have the power to abuse their posi-
tions. Instead of the most responsible
students being chosen to perform this
duty, it could become a matter of
finding those already willing to per-
form it, whatever their motives.
There is also concern for the moni-
tors after they have been selected.
How long can they remain anony-
mous? Even if all students directly
involved manage to keep the secret,
rumors travel fast. Gossip and mis-
trust could begin to hinder mixing
between social groups at Rice. For
example, what people at a Black Stu-
dent Union party or a Hillel function
could be wrongly suspected of being
spies? This has the potential to turn
from a witch hunt for deviant college
organizations to a witch hunt for stu-
dent monitors.
Although the authors of the student
monitor system have good intentions,
they have not fully examined its prob-
lems. A deeper analysis reveals that it
is not an acceptable program for Rice.
Emily Asher
Wiess '91
Davis and Dukes
address policy
To the editor:
As college presidents who have
spent much time to help create a suc-
cessful alcohol policy, we are dis-
turbed by the editorial "Undercover
peers," in the January 29 Thresher. It
contains many misinterpretations
concerning the monitor system.
First of all, the monitors are not
"hired." In no way, save for the reim-
yjbursement of an admission fee, will
tKey be paid for their services. We
have found that all students who we
have approached to be monitors have
ftot only agreed to participate, but
have done so with surprising interest
and seriousness.
Second, the new policy does not
rest on the assumption "that students
will change their behavior if they
suspect they are being watched." It
rests on the assumption that in order
for the alcohol policy to work prop-
erly, we need to have documented
information on how successful it is so
THRESHING IT OUT
letters to the editor
appropriate adjustments can be made
as problems surface. It is our sincere
hope that the policy is working and
that this system will demonstrate this
to a sometimes skeptical administra-
tion. Hopefully, no one will need to
change his behavior due to the insti-
gation of this system.
Furthermore, the monitors will be
accountable for their reports to the
Office of Student Affairs. If a monitor
consistently gives reports which are
clearly not in line with the remainder
of the reports submitted, that monitor
will be replaced. Also, the monitors,
in addition to the entire student body,
should already understand "the rules
of the system." "The effects their
actions could have on other students"
are documented on pages 35 and 36 of
"A Handbook of Information on Stu-
dent Services and Policies and Regu-
lations Affecting Student Life,"
available in all college offices. The
monitors ideally have been recounse-
led on the relevant points by their
masters, presidents, or the Office of
Student Affairs.
It is untrue that there has been a lack
of information. All of the misinterpre-
tations discussed here have been an-
swered in theThresher or in the Stu-
dent Association Senate already.
William A. Davis '88
Wiess College President
Glenn E. Dukes '88
Lovett College President
WHY IS THERE A SNoRKtl
INTWEK&?
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.
Wucker, Michele. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 75, No. 18, Ed. 1 Friday, February 5, 1988, newspaper, February 5, 1988; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245684/m1/2/: accessed June 30, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.