Why are elite Greek organizations composed of almost entirely straight, white, middle-class students?
DeSantis, Alan D. Inside Greek U.: Fraternities, Sororities, and the Pursuit of Pleasure, Power, and Prestige. Lexington: U of Kentucky, 2007. Print.
In his book, Dr. DeSantis explains that there are numerous reasons that Greek organizations remain homogeneous. The first of these factors is self-identification: DeSantis explains that he only thinks of himself as an Italian-American when he is around other Italian-Americans, or when Italian culture is discussed. When students pledge Greek, they are surrounded by others that are straight, white, middle-class and hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine, so they don't have to think of the other identities that they may have, such as poet, helper, working-class, bi-sexual, etc. Therefore, these Greek students think their own race, class, ethnicity is just natural and universal. Another reason is racial nepotism-- white Greek students downright favor whites when they go pledge, and Greek organizations are worried about what having black students will do to their reputation. Finally, some of the xenophobia is not deliberate-- people in general tend to like a person and feel comfortable around them when they feel like they have things in common, be it race, gender, creed, sexual orientation, or religion.
This book took my argument exploration on a journey in another direction. It dealt with the role of gender in fraternities and sororities, and unfortunately confirmed all of my worst fears about Greek Life-- they are elitist organizations that endorse rape, poor body image, cheating (both kinds), fighting, homophobia, drug abuse and alcoholism. Fraternities are much more negative than sororities, but women typically perform better in college than males anyway. However, while only a small percentage of people every join a Greek organization in college, the majority of politicians and business leaders were involved with Greek life. I wish I could have more of a positive view about Greek organizations, but they largely stand guilty as accused.
This source communicates with Source 1 regarding the stereotypes of Greek Life-- this book holds that they are mostly true. It speaks out against Source 2-- it suggests that the way that Greeks want to portray themselves does not measure up with the xenophobic ways these organizations really act. The book seems to provide evidence against Source 3. Source 3 suggests that men in fraternities develop higher moral capabilities than non-Greeks, but this is clearly not the case. Over half of the respondents in Source 3 did not conduct an exit interview a few years later, so it is likely that the more "moral" respondents of Greek Life felt obligated to complete the exit interview, while the data of the typical sloppy Greek males was never recorded (they ignored the exit interview). Also, level of morality is self-reported, so Greek males, feeling defensive or guilty about their actions in college, may have exaggerated their moral accomplishments.
Unfortunately, I was not able to glean as much useful information about student backgrounds as I wanted from this book. I was able to build up a case that the "rush" process (when freshman are recruited) leads to homogeneous, and negative college environments, but I couldn't find reliable information about what kinds of students successfully join fraternities/sororities. Certainly ones that are attractive, well off, thin/buff, and masculine/feminine get in, but this isn't enough information. Is it possible that Greek Organizations merely uphold the status quo, and nothing else? Surely this is damaging in itself, but do Greek Organizations steer members to become more racist, homophobic, and gender stratified? Finding a direct cause and effect would be useful in developing a convincing argument about the state of Greek life in American universities.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Steven Lotz Source 4
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Securing Educational Opportunities for Native American College Students : the Native American Education Act of 2012 : Field Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, on Examining How We Fund Educational Institutions That Operate under a Mandate to Provide Free Tuition for Native American Students, Focusing on Advancing Educational Opportunities for Native American Students, August 22, 2012 (Denver, CO). Washington :U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2015. Print.
1.) I hope to find out the steps the US government is trying to take to improve the amount of Native Americans in higher education.
2.) This is a hearing about all the many ways the US government can try and improve the number of Native Americans in higher education. The point of this meeting was to try a determine how to improve opportunities for Native Americans in higher education.
3.) This article was great at demonstrating what steps the United States government was taking to improve education access for Native Americans who truly need it. I really learned how the government is actually trying to improve access to higher education by funding programs specifically designed to assist Native Americans
4.) This responds to my first source by giving more examples of how the US government can better help the Native American students that really want to attend college, but they just don't have the funds to get this higher education.
5.) I know want to ask "Do these discussion bring us any closer to a true solution to the crisis of Native Americans being unable to receive a higher education?"
1.) I hope to find out the steps the US government is trying to take to improve the amount of Native Americans in higher education.
2.) This is a hearing about all the many ways the US government can try and improve the number of Native Americans in higher education. The point of this meeting was to try a determine how to improve opportunities for Native Americans in higher education.
3.) This article was great at demonstrating what steps the United States government was taking to improve education access for Native Americans who truly need it. I really learned how the government is actually trying to improve access to higher education by funding programs specifically designed to assist Native Americans
4.) This responds to my first source by giving more examples of how the US government can better help the Native American students that really want to attend college, but they just don't have the funds to get this higher education.
5.) I know want to ask "Do these discussion bring us any closer to a true solution to the crisis of Native Americans being unable to receive a higher education?"
Katie Hanson Source 4
What are the benefits of teacher student interaction?
Hagenauer, Gerda, and Simone E. Volet. "Teacher–student Relationship at University: An Important Yet Under-researched Field." Oxford Review of Education 40.3 (2014): 370-88. Web. 6 Mar. 2016.
In this article the author argues that teacher-student relationships in higher education have not been researched to the extent they should. There is a lot of research in grade school but as students start to get older less and less focused is placed on the relationship. The author believes that actually more research should be focused on teacher-student relationship. He then goes on to give reasons for why it should be investigated more into: investigate if TSRs lead to lower student drop out rates, the relationship also affects teachers making them feel like they belong to the university, and to improve teaching methods to improve academics. The author then goes on to summarize all the research that has been done on the subjects of TSR and explains their limitations and where to expand. There is one important quote though "Furthermore, positive relationships with university teachers not only contribute to the retention of students but also facilitate other factors, such as commitment (Strauss &Volkwein, 2004), effort (Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004), motivation (Rugutt & Chemosit, 2009; Zepke & Leach, 2010), satisfaction (Calvo et al., 2010; Dobranska & Frymier 2004; Trigwell, 2005), engagement (Zepke & Leach, 2010), deep-learning approaches (Trigwell, 2005), achievement, and intellectual development (e.g., critical thinking, learning fundamental principles; Halawah, 2006). Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) empirically show the independent influence of TSR on students’ successful learning, controlling for various personal characteristics (e.g., gender, area of study, achievement orientation)." on page 11. The author also mentions that relationships with teacher leave students with a feeling of belonging to the university that they are enrolled in.
I must admit I was so relieved to have finally found this source. I agree with the authors that there is little research about this topic because I have had such a tough time finding any of it. I thought it was interesting all the effects of a TSR has that aren't simply academic. The sense of belonging to a campus is one that I had never thought about before but it makes sense. I feel like TSR also helps teach students about how to have professional relationships with professors and how to maintain them. I think I do need to read this and other articles again to get another understanding of them. This source does answer questions about benefits but also makes it clear that there still needs to be much more research in the area. There is that to take into mind.
This source responds to the first source and about some of the reasons that students were not satisfied with their courses. I feel like this article would disagree with the guy who talked about the validly of grades because he was all against teacher's emotional feelings. This article is very much about students and teacher developing a relationship and getting to know each other. I feel like I agree with this author much more then the grade guy.
I think I want to still look into this question a bit more. There is another article, (note to self article 2 sent by library) that I want to look into. I am not sure where to go from here though. Maybe looking more into the type of character who is actually taking these classes. I feel like that is an important aspect I haven't yet looked at in detail.
Hagenauer, Gerda, and Simone E. Volet. "Teacher–student Relationship at University: An Important Yet Under-researched Field." Oxford Review of Education 40.3 (2014): 370-88. Web. 6 Mar. 2016.
In this article the author argues that teacher-student relationships in higher education have not been researched to the extent they should. There is a lot of research in grade school but as students start to get older less and less focused is placed on the relationship. The author believes that actually more research should be focused on teacher-student relationship. He then goes on to give reasons for why it should be investigated more into: investigate if TSRs lead to lower student drop out rates, the relationship also affects teachers making them feel like they belong to the university, and to improve teaching methods to improve academics. The author then goes on to summarize all the research that has been done on the subjects of TSR and explains their limitations and where to expand. There is one important quote though "Furthermore, positive relationships with university teachers not only contribute to the retention of students but also facilitate other factors, such as commitment (Strauss &Volkwein, 2004), effort (Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004), motivation (Rugutt & Chemosit, 2009; Zepke & Leach, 2010), satisfaction (Calvo et al., 2010; Dobranska & Frymier 2004; Trigwell, 2005), engagement (Zepke & Leach, 2010), deep-learning approaches (Trigwell, 2005), achievement, and intellectual development (e.g., critical thinking, learning fundamental principles; Halawah, 2006). Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) empirically show the independent influence of TSR on students’ successful learning, controlling for various personal characteristics (e.g., gender, area of study, achievement orientation)." on page 11. The author also mentions that relationships with teacher leave students with a feeling of belonging to the university that they are enrolled in.
I must admit I was so relieved to have finally found this source. I agree with the authors that there is little research about this topic because I have had such a tough time finding any of it. I thought it was interesting all the effects of a TSR has that aren't simply academic. The sense of belonging to a campus is one that I had never thought about before but it makes sense. I feel like TSR also helps teach students about how to have professional relationships with professors and how to maintain them. I think I do need to read this and other articles again to get another understanding of them. This source does answer questions about benefits but also makes it clear that there still needs to be much more research in the area. There is that to take into mind.
This source responds to the first source and about some of the reasons that students were not satisfied with their courses. I feel like this article would disagree with the guy who talked about the validly of grades because he was all against teacher's emotional feelings. This article is very much about students and teacher developing a relationship and getting to know each other. I feel like I agree with this author much more then the grade guy.
I think I want to still look into this question a bit more. There is another article, (note to self article 2 sent by library) that I want to look into. I am not sure where to go from here though. Maybe looking more into the type of character who is actually taking these classes. I feel like that is an important aspect I haven't yet looked at in detail.
Charlie Clarke Source 5
Thesis Question: How would paying revenue-creating student-athletes influence their academic motivation and performance?
Entry Question: How would paying athletes hurt them academically?
Source: Ross, Theodore. "Cracking the Cartel." New Republic. N.p., 1 Sept. 2015. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
This article, subtitled "Don't Pay College Athletes" discusses many different topics regarding the wealth distribution among revenue-creating student-athletes. Ross comes from a background in teaching, with specific courses discussing his teachings with college athletes. He uses his knowledge and experience to analytically recollect these moments and build arguments off of them. In the later stages of his article, Ross examines the ramifications of payment and continuously gives reasons not to award student-athletes with money.
I really enjoyed reading this piece. One thing Ross discusses is the clear counterpart, and makes note of it quite often throughout his article, which boosts his credibility. Another thing that makes Ross convincing is his experiences in teaching these athletes and the objectiveness that follows. I think this will be an important source for me to examine in the ladder portion of my essay.
This can be put in synthesis with nearly all of my previous sources, but in particular, the 'Bilas argument' source. Bilas, who is using his logic and common sense, didn't have as quality of resources to examine the issue as Ross did. However, they each still present valid points and would argue with each other. Bilal would argue that money would give student-athletes incentive to stay in school longer. Ross' main point argues that paying college athletes would not increase their motivation to academic perform at a higher level. He argues, in fact, that money de-values the academic portion of the argument. I think these two could go back an forth.
This has forwarded my thinking drastically. I now swing towards the side of not paying college athletes because I believe what Ross is saying, that student athletes don't have extra motivation with compensation, which actually de-values the educational side of college. I think that I am pretty close to finished. I'm going to find one more source that touches on the academic ramifications of paying student-athletes, but I think I'm pretty close to done.
Entry Question: How would paying athletes hurt them academically?
Source: Ross, Theodore. "Cracking the Cartel." New Republic. N.p., 1 Sept. 2015. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
This article, subtitled "Don't Pay College Athletes" discusses many different topics regarding the wealth distribution among revenue-creating student-athletes. Ross comes from a background in teaching, with specific courses discussing his teachings with college athletes. He uses his knowledge and experience to analytically recollect these moments and build arguments off of them. In the later stages of his article, Ross examines the ramifications of payment and continuously gives reasons not to award student-athletes with money.
I really enjoyed reading this piece. One thing Ross discusses is the clear counterpart, and makes note of it quite often throughout his article, which boosts his credibility. Another thing that makes Ross convincing is his experiences in teaching these athletes and the objectiveness that follows. I think this will be an important source for me to examine in the ladder portion of my essay.
This can be put in synthesis with nearly all of my previous sources, but in particular, the 'Bilas argument' source. Bilas, who is using his logic and common sense, didn't have as quality of resources to examine the issue as Ross did. However, they each still present valid points and would argue with each other. Bilal would argue that money would give student-athletes incentive to stay in school longer. Ross' main point argues that paying college athletes would not increase their motivation to academic perform at a higher level. He argues, in fact, that money de-values the academic portion of the argument. I think these two could go back an forth.
This has forwarded my thinking drastically. I now swing towards the side of not paying college athletes because I believe what Ross is saying, that student athletes don't have extra motivation with compensation, which actually de-values the educational side of college. I think that I am pretty close to finished. I'm going to find one more source that touches on the academic ramifications of paying student-athletes, but I think I'm pretty close to done.
T
\\
Steven Lotz Source 3
O'Laughlin, Jeanie. "Financing Of Tribal Colleges." (2002): ERIC. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.
1.) The point of this article is to discover how Tribal colleges, colleges only accessible to Native Americans on specific reservations, are funded, and I want to try and compare this funding to the funding of their public counterparts.
2.) The article gives some data about how the Tribal colleges are funded, as well as detailing how the four different types of colleges found on many reservation. The article shows how these colleges are funded by many parts of the US Government, such as the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act. The article then goes on to show the standards these colleges are held to and the actual amount of money that goes into these colleges.
3.) This does a great job to show how poorly funded the Native American reservation schools are. It shows how the Tribal colleges are poorly funded compared to the public University counterparts. I used to think that the reservations did not have access to higher education and the only way people could go to college is by going to one of the already established universitites. Now, I learned they have access to colleges and universities that are funded by the Native American tribes.
4.) This article also talks about some points that my first source brought up. This article would agree with the first source that the United States government is trying to fund these Native American schools and improve the lives of the Native American youth that before would not have access to higher education.
5.) This article leads me to ask the question "Are Native American schools using this funding to the best of their ability?" and "Should these schools be funded primarily by the United States, or should these universities be funded by the Native Americans and tribes that use them?"
1.) The point of this article is to discover how Tribal colleges, colleges only accessible to Native Americans on specific reservations, are funded, and I want to try and compare this funding to the funding of their public counterparts.
2.) The article gives some data about how the Tribal colleges are funded, as well as detailing how the four different types of colleges found on many reservation. The article shows how these colleges are funded by many parts of the US Government, such as the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act. The article then goes on to show the standards these colleges are held to and the actual amount of money that goes into these colleges.
3.) This does a great job to show how poorly funded the Native American reservation schools are. It shows how the Tribal colleges are poorly funded compared to the public University counterparts. I used to think that the reservations did not have access to higher education and the only way people could go to college is by going to one of the already established universitites. Now, I learned they have access to colleges and universities that are funded by the Native American tribes.
4.) This article also talks about some points that my first source brought up. This article would agree with the first source that the United States government is trying to fund these Native American schools and improve the lives of the Native American youth that before would not have access to higher education.
5.) This article leads me to ask the question "Are Native American schools using this funding to the best of their ability?" and "Should these schools be funded primarily by the United States, or should these universities be funded by the Native Americans and tribes that use them?"
Hannah Stratman Source 4
What influences do corpratization and prestige hold on the function of higher education and what does that tell us about the institution of higher education as a whole?
Is the cost ongoing to college worth the benefits?
Doyle, William. "Overeducated American?". Change. Volume 43. Issue 4. July/August 2011. Web. 7 March 2016.
In Doyle's article, he brings up the fact that maybe America doesn't need to have such a high focus on higher education anyway. I might not pay for an individual to pursue a college degree. He brings up the fact that there has been a "steep decline" in amount of time students spend in class and study combined. The main object of the article is to bring up the debate on whether of not the economy actually needs as many college graduates as college graduates out there. Many college graduates end up working enjoys that may not require a college degree. So does that make college a waste of time, effort, and money? Doyle gives three reasons that a college degree can still be relevant: 1) more education= more money, 2) same as one really, 3) Occupations can change over time and one with higher education can be more flexible. These are all fairly self explanatory.
This article is interesting. I guess I really don't have the perspective of seeing that a college degree is worthless. I think that employers still want someone with a college education. As listed in the article, there still are many benefits to having a college degree whether it is social skills or street knowledge that helps you become better equipped for the job then other non-college graduate applicants. I agree with that statement. I'm also not sure if agree with the fact that people with a college degree automatically make more than people who don't. I think that people that graduate from college are going to have higher paying jobs (doctors, lawyers, etc.). I believe that the person who is the most effective and most successful is going to make more money; whether they graduated from college or not.
In my first source, Mills talks about the influence of prestige and college rankings in the race to be the biggest and the best. As corporatization expands, students and their families become the rabid consumers of higher education. However, Doyle focuses on how college education isn't really a requirement anymore. So it makes me question if the only reason students still to college is because of the prestige higher education holds. Parents push to have their kids attend college because they think that they need to in order get well paying job but maybe that isn't the case. Perhaps students can earn decent paying jobs without paying all the money to attend college in the first place.
This article brings the question..What does this tell us about higher education as a whole? Does this mean higher education isn't worth it? Is the only reason we are going to higher ed because of the status and prestige that come along with it?
Is the cost ongoing to college worth the benefits?
Doyle, William. "Overeducated American?". Change. Volume 43. Issue 4. July/August 2011. Web. 7 March 2016.
In Doyle's article, he brings up the fact that maybe America doesn't need to have such a high focus on higher education anyway. I might not pay for an individual to pursue a college degree. He brings up the fact that there has been a "steep decline" in amount of time students spend in class and study combined. The main object of the article is to bring up the debate on whether of not the economy actually needs as many college graduates as college graduates out there. Many college graduates end up working enjoys that may not require a college degree. So does that make college a waste of time, effort, and money? Doyle gives three reasons that a college degree can still be relevant: 1) more education= more money, 2) same as one really, 3) Occupations can change over time and one with higher education can be more flexible. These are all fairly self explanatory.
This article is interesting. I guess I really don't have the perspective of seeing that a college degree is worthless. I think that employers still want someone with a college education. As listed in the article, there still are many benefits to having a college degree whether it is social skills or street knowledge that helps you become better equipped for the job then other non-college graduate applicants. I agree with that statement. I'm also not sure if agree with the fact that people with a college degree automatically make more than people who don't. I think that people that graduate from college are going to have higher paying jobs (doctors, lawyers, etc.). I believe that the person who is the most effective and most successful is going to make more money; whether they graduated from college or not.
In my first source, Mills talks about the influence of prestige and college rankings in the race to be the biggest and the best. As corporatization expands, students and their families become the rabid consumers of higher education. However, Doyle focuses on how college education isn't really a requirement anymore. So it makes me question if the only reason students still to college is because of the prestige higher education holds. Parents push to have their kids attend college because they think that they need to in order get well paying job but maybe that isn't the case. Perhaps students can earn decent paying jobs without paying all the money to attend college in the first place.
This article brings the question..What does this tell us about higher education as a whole? Does this mean higher education isn't worth it? Is the only reason we are going to higher ed because of the status and prestige that come along with it?
Matt Bowman Source 4
Are there known implications to my current findings?
Exit Counseling Guide for Federal Student Loan Borrowers. Federal Student Aid, US Department of Education. P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398, 2010. ProQuest. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.
In the same way that car loans and home mortgages must be repaid, student loans are borrowed money that must be repaid, with interest. Student loans cannot be canceled if a student is unsatisfied with the education they received, cannot land a job in the field they studied for or are experiencing financial hardship. Loans are lawful responsibilities that students must fully commit to. Exit counseling, of which this article addresses, is required before withdraw, graduation, or dropping below half-time attendance. It helps students fully grasp their rights and duties as a debtor of student loans. It also delivers valuable tips to help students better manage their finances. This federally administered guide offers material on taking out loans, repaying loans, what to do if payments become troublesome, and discharge and forgiveness information. Also included are a Borrower's Rights and Responsibilities form and a Student Contact Information form.
This source doesn’t answer the research question I held in finding it. However, it ties back to my point about furthering the education of student loans and debt for those involved. It does so by straightforwardly laying out every detail its creators think might be of importance for debtors. I found it very interesting that I hadn’t come across this yet. Throughout all the research I’ve done, even parsing through articles stating we need more education on the topic, I had not seen that there is, at least, this federally administered document (I assume there are probably others as well) that can educate students fairly deeply. This is exactly the type of thing I imagined when I praised the idea of broader loan education. Since this source remained fairly invisible to me, it is probable that it did so to many others inquiring about the topic as well. This leads me to slightly rethink my proposition of furthering education. Rather than stressing the basic need for it, I know think there needs to simply be an emphasis put on shedding light on the current education. Students need help learning how to complete many things, loans included, that’s why they are students and not teachers. Many aren’t aware of aids that could help them understand their debt better. By enlarging the emphasis on tools like this document to even bigger aids like counseling itself or classes on loans, I think the problems that occur when students go to pay their debt would decrease quite drastically. I previously thought we needed light emphasis on education of current policies and heavy emphasis on new policies. Now, I am starting to think we could fix a lot with heavy emphasis on education of current policies, negating some of the need for a huge overhaul of our system of higher education as it pertains to student costs and debts.
This text converses nicely with my first source because they both pertain to educating students on loans. My first article declared that there is a terrible problem and that students are horribly unaware of the details of their debts. I agree with the information it lays out. This source responds, in a way, to that by offering detailed educational information on many important details about student loans. It is a direct answer to the first’s “need” in that it provides the “solution” for a lack of information available to students. By reading these articles, I can now see that they both hold merit and an overall solution may lie somewhere in the middle. The first essentially cries that there is hardly enough information widely distributed, the second offers what education students need, and my solution is that education needs to be met in a compromise. Debtors need to be encouraged to seek out details more (that is difficult to propose as a solution since all people will do hat they please) and what information exists needs to be more widely distributed and possibly be made a requirement to learn.
I am now led to search backwards for answers on if our current system would be fine if more people just got more involved. In this, I mean that I have been being led to search for an overhaul of our system of higher education but I am now questioning if that is needed. My research doesn’t directly lead me to this but I am inquisitively thinking and now wonder if the faults in the system aren’t entirely in its makeup but in a lack of efficient control by those involved in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)