After a tough schedule to begin the year, the women’s volleyball team began Patriot League play with two home games last weekend. The women lost a match on Friday against American University 3-1 but won 3-2 on Saturday against Navy.
The Bison came into their match against American having already faced solid competition outside of the Patriot League. The team only posted a record of 2-10, but it grew more unified and competitive as a result.
This competitiveness was apparent as soon as the Orange and Blue took the court in their first league action of 2010. Facing a very tough American University team (12-2), the Bison came out firing on all cylinders.
The energy was apparent as the team jumped out to an early lead in the first set and had the set firmly in the grasp with a score of 23-19. But the Eagles showed their winning mentality, taking the next six points consecutively to win the set.
“We came out strong against a very tough American squad on Friday night. Not only did we have a great game plan, but our overall execution was solid. If we did a better job of closing out the first set, I thought we could have taken the match,” head coach Cindy Opalski said.
Heidi Kamp ’11 and Ragin Jackson ’13 both posted hitting percentages of over .300. As a team, the Bison did not hit well, averaging .113; American’s average was .211.
The team fared much better in the second match. The Navy Midshipmen took the Orange and Blue down to the wire, but the Bison finished the fifth and final set ahead 17-15.
The Bison narrowly out-hit their opponent .178 to .167. The team owes much of its success to Kamp, who had an impressive 21 kills and a hitting percentage of .459. The highest Midshipmen hitting percentage was .286.
Kamp was very happy with the team’s performance. “Saturday’s match found our Bucknell team in the most fluid cohesion I have yet to feel this season, and the victory certainly left an incredibly sweet taste in our mouths for the remainder of the weekend,” she said.
This week the Bison will return to the road to face Lafayette and Lehigh.
The U.S.S. Monitor, the famous Union ironclad warship serving at the Battle of Hampton Roads, was the first U.S. ship to have a flush toilet below the waterline.
This November, a proposition to legalize recreational marijuana for those over 21 years of age will be put to vote in California. Proposition 19 has divided politicians, law enforcement officials and Californians. Those against the proposition stand by arguments we have all heard: marijuana is a gateway drug, it creates motivational problems and it will cause consumption to increase. There has been no hard evidence that marijuana is a gateway drug and in fact most experiments conducted on this matter seem to suggest otherwise.
Opponents who note the motivational problems related to marijuana might be onto something. I’ve spent too many days trying to convince my friends that throwing a football would be better than watching the DVD menu of Life, but this is hardly a reason to continue banning marijuana. We might as well be against marijuana usage because the obscene amount of food you eat contributes to obesity in the United States.
I fundamentally disagree with the argument that consumption will increase if marijuana is legalized. Los Angeles is the best example of why this not true. In this city the use of medical marijuana has become so liberal that it is effectively legal. In this environment there hasn’t been a dramatic increase in marijuana usage and I’ve even seen instances where consumption has declined due to the higher prices of medical stores.
Furthermore there are a number of opportunities California can capitalize on through this proposition. The first and easiest sell in a state that has a $19.1 billion deficit is the tax revenue that can be gained through legalization, according to USA Today. Potential tax revenue from marijuana is estimated at $1.4 billion dollars. The effectiveness of our police force would also rise significantly.
Right across the Bay from where I live, Oakland struggles with one of the highest murder rates in the United States. I’m sure police in Oakland would be happy to stop arresting thousands of people for minor possessions and divert those resources towards dealing with the serious problems they face.
The violence across our border is another compelling reason to legalize marijuana. The drug-cartel wars in Mexico, which have left over 20,000 dead, have been mainly caused by factions fighting over drug routes into the United States. Cutting off this lucrative market from these cartels would do the Mexican government, its civilians and the U.S. a favor.
Marijuana is a still a drug that, like alcohol, should be used with precaution, but prolonging a 73-year-old ban that has been completely ineffective puts our citizens in danger and just doesn’t make sense. Whether or not this proposition passes, states and the federal government should look at ways to responsibly decriminalize marijuana.
Students’ behavior at the Howard Gardner lecture last Thursday evening prompted a debate about proper decorum that shouldn’t be necessary on a campus like ours, where maturity is an unstated expectation. The event, however, does raise important questions about the Transition to College course and student engagement at the University.
The fact that first-year students were required to attend the lecture as part of their Transition to College course does not excuse disrespectful or rude behavior. Texting, sleeping and chatting during the presentation reflects poorly on the University as a whole and is a juvenile way of expressing displeasure. Having scholars visit our campus and sharing their ideas is a privilege that we liberal arts students should relish.
As college students, we should be held responsible for our actions, and we should promote change through alternative means, such as well-reasoned argument.
Of course, students are not the only ones at fault. Many students were not engaged in the lecture, perhaps because of the book selection for the first-years’ common reading. Some students believe Gardner’s book, “Five Minds for the Future,” was too light and fluffy, politically correct and even arrogant. Much of the class of 2014 agreed that they hated the book before they even arrived on campus. Still others said Gardner was dismissive of questions and did not handle criticism well. In the future, a book should be chosen that engages students and stimulates intellectual debates.
The Transition to College course itself could also be at fault. Many first-year students do not take this pass-fail course seriously, and this disdainful attitude could have carried over to the lecture. The course, we believe, is valuable to the first-years’ development and adjustment to college life; however, it needs to be presented in a way that will be taken seriously. Perhaps the course could be administered online over the summer, or the information could be conveyed through foundation seminars or interaction with resident assistants. Still, acting out during the speaker’s presentation is a poorly executed way of expressing dissatisfaction with the course.
More generally, we fear the students’ behavior is indicative of a decline in student engagement. In many classes, especially large lectures, students spend their time texting or surfing sites unrelated to classwork. We question whether this is a matter of teaching students how to behave in a college environment, or if it simply speaks to a growing trend of disrespect and apathy in an increasingly mobile and networked age.
Regardless of the causes of students’ poor decorum in presentation spaces and in the classroom, we strongly urge University students to think deeply about why they are in college and about how they comport themselves. If they are here to truly learn and broaden their minds, we hope they will show it by putting down their mobile devices, staying awake during lectures, paying attention in class and acting like mature and engaged college students.
This week’s episode, “Double Identity,” essentially part two of last week’s season four premiere, was unusually dramatic. Dan’s a daddy, Blair might have a shot at dating French royalty, Chuck is missing, and his wallet was found with blood on it.
For once, the adult characters were completely drama-free. This might mean a new shift in plot focus towards the college-aged characters, instead of the trials and tribulations of married life. On a show clearly marketed towards high school and college students, this could be a smart move.
The first two episodes were also mostly set in Paris instead of Manhattan. Everyone came home at the end of “Double Identity,” but this French excursion might be a glimpse into a more exotic new season.
Baby Milo’s presence will certainly change the course of events this season. The characters are beginning to deal with more “grown-up” problems, like potential marriage proposals and teen parenthood. High school drama, college admittance stress, college issues and now concerns of young adulthood are all being addressed, and all at the right times.
The music on the show has also taken a new direction. Pop songs are eclipsing the unremarkable choices of the past. Again, the change may not last, but it seems like a good idea to add musical appeal to an already popular show.
Nate’s new friend Juliet looks like the big mystery of the season. She has a wall covered in printouts of Gossip Girl posts in a dimly lit, suspicious-looking room. Maybe we’ll even find out who Gossip Girl really is this season. As always, we’ll have to wait, and since this is only the second episode, we have a lot of waiting to do.
In early July, “Despicable Me” was released and soon earned a number-one box office spot. Its opening grossed $53.3 millionand was the third largest animated movie opening of the summer, following “Toy Story 3” and “Shrek Forever After,” according to imdb.com.
Steve Carell, known for his work in “The Office,““Get Smart“ and “Dinner for Schmucks” voices Gru, a once-great supervillain that has had a few too many mishaps. WhenVector, voiced by Jason Segel (“Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and “I Love You, Man”), takes the world by storm and upstages Gru by stealing the Great Pyramid of Giza, Gru sets out to steal the biggest monument yet: the moon.
Gru’s plan is brilliant, but he has difficulties obtaining a loan from the Bank of Evil without the shrink ray he will use for the heist. When Gru finally obtains the shrink ray, Vector steals it.
Gru must figure out how to get the shrink ray back from Vector’s super high-tech lair. Even with the help of Dr. Nefario (voiced by Russell Brand), Gru’s elderly, hearing-impaired associate, and hundreds of little yellow minions, Gru cannot find a way to break into Vector’s place. But with the help of Margo, Edith and Agnes, three orphan sisters, he might be able to acquire the shrink ray.
While this may seem like a children’s movie, the family–friendly comedy still appeals to older audiences. You will laugh more than a few times at the hilarious minions and comedic cast. Carell’s comedic talent shines through, and his character will have you laughing at his appearance, voice and jokes.
But the movie is more than just entertaining. The adorable girls will win you and Gru over, and the ending will warm your heart. This movie is the perfect combination of comedy and compassion.
Thanks much for the thoughtful coverage of the recent Faith/Science and Science/Faith debate, which stimulated thoughtful discussion and agreement on the need for compassion and humility among people with different points of view on campus.
Given the necessary boiling down of complex issues in the article, I just wanted to clarify one point attributed to me from the discussion. In the Orthodox Christian tradition, creation is regarded as good and beautiful based on the Genesis account. It became corrupted for human beings because of the Fall and the corruption of humans. The Fall did not change the fundamentally good and beautiful nature of human beings and of creation. But it did bring with it a kind of cosmic objectification that obscured and warped both together. Thus the grasping of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a kind of immature reach for a dualistic knowledge of everything–an effort to know and possess knowledge of the world selfishly, bringing disaster due to a lack of humility. One way to think about this is through the term “to demonize”: When we demonize something or someone, we objectify our reality and become in a sense ourselves demon-like.
That is one way of thinking about what the Fall was about in Orthodox Christian tradition, involving a kind of objectification of both the world and ourselves. While we are not individually culpable, we live amid the collective effects.
Two weeks ago, the Bucknellian included an article entitled “University panel presents findings in study of sexual assault on campus.” While reading the continuation of the article on page three, I was struck by a set of photos of sorority recruitment activities on page two. One of those photos in particular does a great deal to highlight the problems posed by the current climate for women, particularly women students, on our campus: a photo of a smiling female student displaying a sign with the words “welcome Chi Omega baby hooters.” I have no idea how many women students at the University either think of themselves as, or aspire to be, “baby hooters.” But the fact that a female student presented this characterization publicly, and appeared to do so proudly, provides an indication of how far we have to go in our efforts to create a healthy campus environment for women on this campus. Notwithstanding the picture on the poster, I do not believe that the operative metaphor had anything to do with owls.
Howard Gardner spoke about his book, "Five Minds for the Future," in the Weis Center Sept. 15.
Student behavior at a lecture last Thursday evening has sparked ongoing discussion between faculty and students about proper decorum during presentations and classes.
According to accounts from professors and first-year students, many in the audience of Howard Gardner’s talk on “Five Minds for the Future” were disrespectful toward the speaker. First-year students were required to read Gardner’s book and attend the lecture as part of their Transition to College course.
“Some [students] were sleeping. Some were texting. Some were doing their homework,” Tamerat Feyisa ’14 said.
Mitch Chernin, professor of biology, was “appalled” at the behavior.
“I could hear a constant din within the Weis Center,” he said. “I realize that this was a required event for first-year students and many of them would have preferred doing something else at that time; however, it is not unreasonable to expect respectful behavior during a lecture.”
Mike Toole, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, noticed similar behavior from where he sat in the front row.
“I heard this coughing nonstop throughout the lecture,” he said. After seeing many people “sleeping, chattering and not paying attention,” he speculated the coughing was part of a coordinated effort through which the class expressed displeasure and boredom.
“It was just very frustrating to me,” Toole said.
The morning after the lecture, Toole spoke to other faculty members before posting a message expressing his concern about the students’ behavior on a virtual faculty forum (vforum). Besides describing the rude behavior he perceived, Toole also wrote “students cheered the first two questions simply because the questioners pointedly criticized the book and speaker without stopping to listen and reflect on whether the criticism had merit” during the question-and-answer section of the talk.
According to Toole, the message received approximately 25 replies by Monday afternoon. In addition to addressing concerns about behavior at the lecture, the posting also raised questions about the state of student behavior in general on campus.
Some faculty members believe student behavior in the classroom is not an issue as long as expectations about decorum are established at the start of class.
“In one class recently I allowed [students] to bring in their laptops, and I realized that was a mistake because that facilitated communication between them that wasn’t directed toward the class,” said David Kristjanson-Gural, associate professor of economics.
Other faculty members do not believe student behavior is an issue.
“My view from giving lectures in physics classes over the years [is] that I haven’t seen a significant change in student behavior,” said Ben Vollmayr-Lee, associate professor of physics,on the vforum.
The conversation on decorum has spread to the classroom.
Kristjanson-Gural devoted a 20-minute discussion about the lecture in the foundation seminar course he teaches. He said many students “expressed embarrassment … and disapproval of the attitude of the students who were disrespectful.”
In many Transition to College classes this week, instructors discussed the issue of decorum with first-year students.Ashley Rooney ’14 saidduring class, students were asked to fill out a survey including questions about what constitutes proper behavior and a respectful audience.
“Most kids said that the first few pages and then rest of the book had an arrogant tone,” Rooney said. ”Some kids described [the book] as pompous and said [the tone] carried throughout the lecture.”
Rooney, one of the students who questioned Gardner about the ethics of capitalism and socialism as economic systems, said she did not notice any misbehavior during the lecture, but that she believes criticism should be expected when an author writes a book based on opinion.
“I think it’s fine to ask questions and to be critical,” Rooney said. “Thomas Jefferson tells us to question boldly.”
Feyisa, a 32-year-old first-year from Ethiopia, also spoke during the question-and-answer portion and criticized the book as too “career-oriented.”
“My argument was that it was not a book that promotes intellectual virtues,” Feyisa said.
He said the book did not promote “the life of the mind … the life of the intellect” and that it did not encourage critical thinking.
Feyisa attributes the students’ behavior to a lack of engagement with the book. Before even coming to the University, Feyisa said that a discussion about the book unfolded on the “Bucknell University Class of 2014” Facebook page.
“We sort of had this cyber community,” he said. “Everybody was talking about how they hated the book.”
The book’s failure to create discourse and start controversy, he said, was the real problem behind the students’ lack of engagement and subsequent behavior during the lecture.
Several students in the audience thought their fellow students’ behavior was uncalled for.
“I thought that we owed him a lot more than we gave him. Even if we didn’t like the book, he’s still another human being, and there’s a level of respect that shouldn’t be breached,” Liane Chesek ’14 said.
Maddy Liss ’14 expressed a similar opinion about the question-and-answer part of the talk.
“I was really embarrassed,” she said. “I wanted to stand up and say something.”
No official disciplinary action has been taken. Toole believes discussions about unacceptable behavior will prevent the texting, sleeping and chatting during lectures from occurring in the future.
“We know that this was not the entire class of 2014,” Toole said. “It was just some students who felt that they didn’t need to be there.”
