College is a time for getting out on your own, meeting new people, trying new things, and most of all getting a solid, more in depth understanding of a certain subject. So why are colleges and universities making students take basic, entry level classes of subjects that don't pertain to their area of study? Here at the University of Northern Iowa, we have the Liberal Arts Core, or the LAC, which makes us take so many hours in different subject areas. All students have to take basic Math, Reading, Writing, History (Humanities), Music, Cultural, physical Science, Biology, and everyone's favorite Personal Wellness classes. In total, the LAC is between 50-65 credit hours, depending on which classes in each area you pick. I personally had about 20 or so hours of the LAC covered from duel-credit classes in high school, but others aren't as lucky. I don't see why I have to take a music listening or biology class if I'm here as a math major. Some of the Culture and Humanities classes could be interesting, but the ones that would be aren't an option for the LAC, or the LAC courses are their prerequisites. As a logical person, I don't see the reasoning for making a Mathematics major take Composition I. It's obvious that we don't enjoy creativity as much as logic and problem solving by our major choice, so why keep torturing us? Maybe they just want us to raise the class average so they don't look like such an ass as a teacher. And really, nobody cares for Personal Wellness. If I wanted to retake 6th grade Health class, I would have. All the Universities really care about is making sure people won't say they went to their school when losing on "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader." They wouldn't have to, though, if the high schools in this country would actually teach instead of caring about everyone being happy and have fun and attempting to not get sued.
I blame society most for me having to retake my least favorite classes. People don't realize that focusing on feelings and equality ruins efficiency. It may make you feel better on the inside, but caring about yourself hurts everyone else. It isn't racist or sexist if a company highers a white man over a black woman if the white man produces twice as much than the black woman, so why does everyone jump to help the "poor neglected worker" and convince her to sue? Suing does nothing but waste everyone's time and money. If everyone would just work harder, and actually work, this country would be a lot better. But caring about everyone's feelings is only half of protecting high schools from being sued: The other half is having rules galore to protect their own asses. Tardy policies, suspensions, discipline ladders, and other mumbo jumbo no one enforces is more than common in today's American high school. You know what happens if you're late to work? You get fired, not suspended. So make expulsion the punishment in school so people actually go to class and learn instead of skipping half a week and not caring when they show up. Plus if you're gone, you shouldn't be able to spend an hour in the teacher's office having your hand held while they walk you through what you missed. You should just have to learn it on your own like a real person would do.
So maybe if we could fix society to stop babying everyone and teach them how to actually earn stuff, we can be actually happier than we are now, because we'll know we earned what we got. No more free rides, people, you have to earn your money and stop free riding the government. Then maybe welfare won't be as far down the shitter as it is now. And then maybe I won't have to take all these stupid classes that no one ever liked. because in the end all I care about is myself: it's what society taught me to do. maybe I won't be so complaining in my next post? We'll see about that.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 11, 10, 13..
Let's talk some sports, specifically college football, and even more specifically the Big 10 and Big 12. For those of you who aren't familiar with these two conferences, here are the teams in the Big 10 and Big 12:
BIG 10: Leaders Division: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Legends Division: Illinois, Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin
BIG 12: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech.
For those of you who can count, you realize what I'm about to discuss. If you can't count, then you are probably an athlete in one of these two conferences. The names are misleading: the Big 10 has 12 teams and the Big 12 has 10 teams. This will be the first year where the this is the case. The problem lies with the Big 10. The Big 12 had previously done the right, not confusing, thing of changing their name to how many teams they have. In 1996, the conference expanded from 8 teams to 12 (The 4 teams from Texas joined, Baylor and the schools with Texas in their name) and they changed from the Big 8 to the Big 12. The Big 10, however, stopped changing their name a while ago. The last time was in 1950, when Michigan State became the 10th team, is when they changed to the Big 10 from the Big 9. They went astray in 1990 when Penn State joined the conference and they failed to upgrade their name to the Big 11. Now with Nebraska entering the conference this year (They left the Big 12 for a better conference, where as Colorado left the Big 12 for more money and easier competition, for the most part, in the correctly named Pac-12), they are now twice as wrong and bringing utter confusion with the Big 10 and Big 12 being oppositely named.
Now you are probably thinking "What's this kids point here?" and "Is he going to give a possible solution?" The answer is, stop getting ahead of me. Enjoy the ride and I'll get to my point when I want to. Now, I could go down a long, pointless path of tying the confused conferences for why student athletes aren't as bright as other students, but the reality is that's just because they are lazy and rely on their athleticism to get them by and use that for a living. My point here is that the conferences should stop with the numbers in their names. Look at the SEC: no number, so when they add or drop teams no one cares or is confused. It just so happens that the main three conferences in this new realignment, the Big 10, Big 12, and the Pac-12, all have numbers. In fact, these are the only 3 conferences named with a number. So I think that, in the next year or two, that these conferences should make a decision about whether the want to stay with an incorrect number and be the punchlines of terrible jokes, update the number to what is correct, or prepare for the future and change their name to something more bad ass without a number.
Well, that's my take on misnamed collegiate conferences. I know, pretty entertaining and educational, right? Don't get used to it. I foresee myself going on more opinionated, less educational, more entertaining rants in the future. The biggest question is, what will I rant about next? I guess you'll have to wait and see, same as me.
BIG 10: Leaders Division: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Legends Division: Illinois, Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin
BIG 12: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech.
For those of you who can count, you realize what I'm about to discuss. If you can't count, then you are probably an athlete in one of these two conferences. The names are misleading: the Big 10 has 12 teams and the Big 12 has 10 teams. This will be the first year where the this is the case. The problem lies with the Big 10. The Big 12 had previously done the right, not confusing, thing of changing their name to how many teams they have. In 1996, the conference expanded from 8 teams to 12 (The 4 teams from Texas joined, Baylor and the schools with Texas in their name) and they changed from the Big 8 to the Big 12. The Big 10, however, stopped changing their name a while ago. The last time was in 1950, when Michigan State became the 10th team, is when they changed to the Big 10 from the Big 9. They went astray in 1990 when Penn State joined the conference and they failed to upgrade their name to the Big 11. Now with Nebraska entering the conference this year (They left the Big 12 for a better conference, where as Colorado left the Big 12 for more money and easier competition, for the most part, in the correctly named Pac-12), they are now twice as wrong and bringing utter confusion with the Big 10 and Big 12 being oppositely named.
Now you are probably thinking "What's this kids point here?" and "Is he going to give a possible solution?" The answer is, stop getting ahead of me. Enjoy the ride and I'll get to my point when I want to. Now, I could go down a long, pointless path of tying the confused conferences for why student athletes aren't as bright as other students, but the reality is that's just because they are lazy and rely on their athleticism to get them by and use that for a living. My point here is that the conferences should stop with the numbers in their names. Look at the SEC: no number, so when they add or drop teams no one cares or is confused. It just so happens that the main three conferences in this new realignment, the Big 10, Big 12, and the Pac-12, all have numbers. In fact, these are the only 3 conferences named with a number. So I think that, in the next year or two, that these conferences should make a decision about whether the want to stay with an incorrect number and be the punchlines of terrible jokes, update the number to what is correct, or prepare for the future and change their name to something more bad ass without a number.
Well, that's my take on misnamed collegiate conferences. I know, pretty entertaining and educational, right? Don't get used to it. I foresee myself going on more opinionated, less educational, more entertaining rants in the future. The biggest question is, what will I rant about next? I guess you'll have to wait and see, same as me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)