The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 6, Ed. 1 Friday, September 27, 1991 Page: 3 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:
THE RICE THRESHER FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1991 3
Science and engineering students write to defend their honor
Accept other's
majors and end
ridiculous argument
To the editors,
We, as alumni, were appalled at a
recent column in the Thresher by
Mark Bennett In this article Mr.
Bennett spends a full half page
bashing science and engineering
majors, a group of people that he
obviously knows little about
Mr, Bennett begins by saying
that academs are the only ones with
"real majors"—the same ridiculous
claim that some pompous SE's fre-
quently make about their own field
of study. He follows this insipid argu-
ment with a statement that SE's are
either genetically flawed or poorly
brought up and are incapable of
performing "various simple tasks up
to a very low standard."
Mr. Bennett was correct in hy-
pothesizing that many times the Big
Three are no more than learning how
to "plug and chug." However, the Big
Three are essential building blocks
to most science and engineering
classes, just as learning how to read
and write in elementary school are
the basics to most academ classes.
Obviously, Mr. Bennett has never
taken advanced SE classes to see
that much creativity and thought are
necessary in such things as design
and research. It seems shocking to
usthatafifth-yearacadematRice has
failed to realize that creative ideas
and concepts are tightly intertwined
with mathematical and analytical
thought For example, most theories
are based on mathematical models,
even in academ classes.
In addition, Mr. Bennett compares
the Big Three and other classes,
which he claims are "nothing too
stressful or difficult," with freshman
academ courses such as English
and history. What he fails to take into
account, and what most academs and
SE's are already aware of, is that such
a comparison is completely unfair.
Understanding how to solve a
physical, analytical, or technical
problem requires an entirely differ-
ent set of thought processes than
understanding how to write an intel-
ligent and comprehensive essay.
Furthermore, the grading in SE and
academ classes is performed using a
completely different set of criteria.
Most technical problems have a very
limited number of right answers,
while scoring an essay is a very sub-
jective process. Such differences
render Mr. Bennett's comparison
meaningless.
Mr. Bennett also claims that SE's
"try to use old methods to solve new
problems" while academs "learn to
use innovative methods to solve old
problems." Those of us working as
engineers in the real world will beg
to differ. Sure, we use old solutions
to solve recurring old problems (aca-
dems do the same thing, only they
call it "using the past to predict the
future"), but we also develop new
solutions wherever possible. Without
these new solutions created by sci-
entists and engineers, mankind
would still be living in caves, dying
by the age of 20, hunting animals and
gathering plants for food. Of course,
mankind may have never even
evolved that far. Designing a weapon
to hunt with or creating irrigation
channels for farming are basic engi-
neering concepts.
At the end of his editorial, Mr.
Bennett states that the solving of
"simple" science and engineering
problems should be left to students
at "low-grade institutions." What he
fails to realize is that some of us of
above-average intelligence actually
have more of an interest in physics,
chemistry, and math than in sociol-
ogy, history, and philosophy. Just as
different people have different
thought processes and abilities, they
also vary in their areas of interest.
Not every bright person in the world
wants to specialize in writing his-
torical essays.
By the above, we do not wish in
any way to say that academs are infe-
rior to SE's. Wejustwantto make the
point that this whole argument is
silly. Does Mr. Bennett actually ex-
pect to find a single sympathetic
reader by completely insulting nearly
half the Rice population and pre-
suming to speak for the rest?
Both academs and SE's have a
purpose. Scientists study and try to
understand nature. Academs study
and try to understand mankind.-En-
gineers try to link nature with man.
None of these endeavors is easy and
each is important We should accept
each others' majors and put Mr.
Bennett's ridiculous argu ment to rest
Alisa Acheson,
BS CIVI, '91
Jan Casto,
BS MSCI/BA Spanish, '91
Liz Vazquez,
BA Behavioral Sciences, '91
Mike Matthews,
BS Mech. E., '91
Megan Fedders,
BA Chemistry/
BA Environmental Science, '91
The article must
have been either a
joke or ignorance
To the editors,
When I first read Mark Bennett's
articles in last week's Thresher 1
thought he must be joking. Most
people are joking when they claim
SE's are biologically similar to labo-
ratory animals. However, I doubt Mr.
Bennett has ever been in a real
laboratory or has any concept of what
actually happens in one.
I really hate to see a printed article
written in such ignorance go unan-
swered and since I have worked in
three laboratories let me tell you wh at
the "poor SE" is really like.
The truth is the greatest scientist
is the most creative one. The engi-
neering community is made up of
people who are constantly looking
for new ways to solve problems and it
is really a ridiculous statement that
SE's should give up their chosen
fields and "study something that will
do some good."
Scientific work is one of the most
inherently creative fields one could
enter. In what other area are people
so constantly trying to do things never
done before? Scientists and engineers
in the "real world" work in teams and
are expected to produce results
where others have failed.
In that kind of environment a
"plug-and-chug" approach is simply
impossible. Creativity is a necessity.
Everyone has work hard at Rice,
Academs and SE's alike. I really re-
sent someone who has the audacity
to think he is qualified to decide what
is really worth studying and then tell
me that my major is worthless.
I am also offended that the
Thresher would print such a ground-
less, malicious attack on a group of
people at this university as a staff
written "column."
In the future, I hope that Mr.
Bennett can find some material a
little more worthwhile than thegenre
of "academs are smart, SE's are
monkeys." He's certainly got no-
where to go but up.
Colin Hendricks
Brown '93
Don't overlook the innovation by confusing the tools with the craft
To the editors,
Mark Bennett's attempt to belittle
the pursuit of science in last week's
article,"Measured Words," obviously
was intended either to provoke
some response from the sea of scien-
tists and mathematicians on campus
or to further illustrate their mind-
world in which creativity and inno-
vation can be (and has proven to be)
of immeasurable value.
I admit that much of the empha-
sis in freshmen science and math
classes is on the development of
methods which lead to "plug-and-
chug" problem solving, but one
Could these advances have possibly been
made by brain-dead morons
lessness by lack of response. So
rather than let his claims stand
unchallenged, I have chosen to hu-
mor him with a reply.
I claim that science is not a
simple-minded mechanical trivial-
ity, but rather, it is an analytical
Intelligent professors made unintelligible
by Steven Bryant
It's truly amazing how many
gripes people exchange during a
normal C. K. meal. A few days ago, I
was listening to my SE friends
lament about the state of their
classes and grades over plates of
mystery meat when I noticed some-
thing quite extraordinary.
N early all of them agreed that one
of the most frustrating aspects of
their Rice experience is the mind-
numbing chore of trying to under-
stand a professor or a graduate stu-
dent whose grasp of the English
language is, to say the least inad-
equate. They moan and groan about
how much easier their classes would
be if they didn't have to spend three-
fourths of their time in mute
incomprehension, hopelessly per-
plexed by their teacher's terrible
accent. Although this situation
might seem humorous — Matt
Groening even lampooned it in School
is Hell — it's very serious to those
students who do poorly because of
the language barrier separating them
and their instructor.
After taking a very informal poll of
a few of my fellow classmates, I re-
alized that this problem does occur
occasionally in the various science
departments but is especially pro-
nounced in the Math department.
Again horror stories abound about
how their professor, be he Chinese
or Indian or whatever, simply can
not, because of his heavily accented
(and sometimes even grammatically
incorrect) English, make himself
understood to even a slim minority
of his class. So, the hapless students
shake their heads and say to them-
selves after they walk out of the lec-
ture, "Well, 111 read the book and
hope that helps me."
The actual tragedy of this situa-
tion is two-fold. First, the students
are not getting the education they
paid for. In order for the students to
understand completely all the con-
cepts which they are being taught
in class, they should haveaprofessor
who can explain the difficult points. I
know that there are a few hotshots
out there who can learn it all from the
book, but they are definitely in the
minority. If the students can't even
comprehend what their professor is
saying to them, their chance of really
understanding the subject of the dis-
course is positively minute. They fin-
ish the class frustrated and sure that
they would have learned more if the
professor had spoken better English.
Second, the professor or graduate
instructor gets a reputation as a bad
teacher among the students, when
he may be superb. His ability to
convey his exceptional understand-
ing of and true excitement in his
subject is impaired by a mere lan-
guage barrier which has absolutely
nothing to do with his field.
I propose a plan that might serve
to reduce the frustration among both
the student body and the faculty. It's
fairly simple. All incoming faculty or
graduate students that speak English
as a second language and do not pass
a strict oral examination of their En-
glish speaking skills should be re-
quired to take a course in conversa-
tional English with an emphasis on
pu blic speaking. Such a cou rse wou Id
be designed to reduce the in structor's
accent and provide him with the
speaking experience necessary to
make himself fully understood in
class. Research assistants and those
graduate students who do not teach
classes would not have to take the
course.
Not only would this course help
the instructor in class, but it would
also make it easier for him to interact
with other English speakers outside
Rice as well. Moreover, I don't feel
that the incoming faculty should have
to pay for the course. Such a require-
ment would be an insult and consti-
tute anunfair restriction; instead, Rice
University should provide the course
free of charge.
This program seems to me to be
a small price to pay to radically im-
prove the teaching quality in some of
the departments at this university.
This faculty should not be punished
for their inability to speak the lan-
guage correctly. They should be as-
sisted in their quest to provide the
best possible education for their stu-
dents. For the university to ignore
their needs and the students' is a
tragedy. I hope that someday a plan
such as this might be adopted at
every English speaking university
that hires international faculty. It's a
fact that student and teacher must
first understand each other before
o ne can learn and the other can teach.
must accept these methods as tools
which are used in more advanced
work to construct theories and mod-
els of real world phenomena — they
do not constitute the whole of the
discipline as Mr. Bennett purports.
Indeed, academs also rely on tools
in the construction of theories, but
they are at somewhat of an advan-
tage since the tools crucial to their
work can be discussed at a more
elementary level.
For example, if I were to be as
simplistic as Mr. Bennett, I might
equate the study of history to the
memorization of dates and places,
or I might claim that English is sim-
ply reading and writing, but I realize
that knowledge of historical events
and the ability to read and write are
merely tools used in such disciplines.
Most high school programs de-
velop these basic tools, so elemen-
tary college writing courses can im-
mediately begin demanding students
to utilize their knowledge of these
tools in discussion of meaningful
questions.
In order to answer meaningful
scientific questions, however, more
complex tools than those developed
in high school are essential, so they
are developed in college courses.
Mr. Bennett's grossly oversimplified
and naive attempt to represent all of
science with an example of a simple
tool is inadequate at best for com-
parison of the sciences with the hu-
manities and social sciences.
Scientists have used their exten-
sive collection of tools along with
their creative insight to bring us new
technologies and to further our world
for as long as they have existed.
Consider all of the technologies on
which we rely constantly- medicine,
electronics, and structural engineer-
ing, for example.
Could these advances have pos-
sibly been made by brain-dead mo-
rons, plugging numbers into equa-
tions?
I agree with Mr. Bennett that
the world needs more people who
can dream, but I believe that these
people are scholars of all types who
can apply common knowledge in an
innovative way to create something
useful.
Erik Daniel
Brown '92
Freshness, quality & great taste on one plate
Open every day
6811 Kirby at Holcombe
Houston, TX 77030
(713) 666-4047
Mon.-Thurs. 11 am - 9 pin
Fri.. 11 am - 10 pm
Sat. 12 pin - 10 pm
Sun. 12pin- 9 pm
HEALTHY MALES WANTED AS SEMEN DONORS:
Fairfax Cryobank needs healthy young men as semen donors:
Excellent compensation; Help Infertile Couples; Confidentiality
Ensured; Ages 18 to 35; located in the Texas Medical Center.
Call Fairfax Cryobank at 799-9937
FAIRFAX CRYOBANK
A division of
THE GENETICS & I.V.F. INSTITUTE
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.
Zitterkopf, Ann & Howe, Harlan. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 6, Ed. 1 Friday, September 27, 1991, newspaper, September 27, 1991; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245791/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.