Lower Education

This semester, I've been confronted with some rather troubling views on higher education. Naturally, I'd like to achieve a better understanding of this through a survey. I realize responses won't be anonymous, but I cannot imagine that would stop my more opinionated acquaintances! It's not a scientific poll, anyway...

Respond to each statement using the scale:
Strongly Disagree--Inclined to Disagree--Neither--Inclined to Agree--Strongly Agree

And feel free to elaborate on any of your responses, of course.

1. Paying tuition for higher education is the same as paying for any other service.

2. Higher education is an investment in yourself.

3. When you are paying tuition, especially out-of-pocket, institutions should follow the "customer is always right" rule.

4. There should be no consequences for missing classes, whatever the reason.

5. There should be no due dates for assignments.

6. You should spend at least 3 hours of out-of-class work per credit hour of class.

7. A degree is earned, not given.

8. It is unfair to offer a makeup exam because it gives that student more study time than his/her classmates.

9. It is the teacher's job to make the subject interesting for students.

10. Enrollment is a choice, and completing coursework is the student's responsibility.

11. Everyone should have at least a bachelor's degree.

12. Higher education is a privilege.

Thank you for participating! I'm no Bill O'Reilly, but I hope I'll be able to compile some results and share interesting opinions about education today.

purpose

Movies that most people wouldn’t waste their time on are one of my few vices. The others include Coca Cola and sleeping in. So, if you needed further proof of my lack of wildness, there you are. One of those movies is Ever After, and I bring it up only because one line has been repeating in my head for a few months now: “I used to think, if I cared at all, I would have to care about everything...and I’d go stark raving mad.”

That is rather like how I feel right now. Maybe not the stark raving mad part, but the anxiety about finding a “purpose.” I’ve been honing in on something to do with my own journey beyond southeast Ohio and back again, but that makes me wonder if I should keep piling on the purposefulness. Do I care about poverty? Hunger? Child abuse prevention? Sure. I wish I could solve it all.

I have trouble letting go. In effect, I let go of the Heifer Project for some complicated and silly reasons that no one has thus far directly asked me about. I completed a term in AmeriCorps, but chose not to pursue another. In all fairness, that decision came at the same time I was asked to add a second art history class to my schedule. The field I obtained two degrees in of course takes precedence. So letting go feels good. It’s a relief, in many ways, but it is also...sad isn’t the proper word. Bitter is too strong. Disappointing, perhaps?

One of the major criticisms of my generation—and the next one—is that we’re wayward. We flit from job to job, from interest to interest. But isn’t that a more natural way to live? Apart from the nuts and bolts of it all: eating, sleeping, socializing; can one really dedicate their lives to one thing, or one realm of things, and stick to it? Maybe not in this job market. One of the few good things about my crooked path is where I am right now, teaching. It’s growing on me. That’s not to say I’ll be a professor from now until the end. But I’ve found a realm I’d like to stay in/near/vaguely adjacent to.

That realm is difficult to define. Not simply “the arts,” not just “academia.” I want to be involved in the literacy movement as well as art history. I want to keep trying to broaden the views of people who have never seen the value in looking beyond Ohio’s borders. Or even the county’s. I’ve already let this drive me a little crazy, taking it personally when one student or another doesn’t see the value and might never see it. That’s the caring about everything, or everyone, part.

But, did you read up there, “I want to be,” not “I am”? I still feel like I am in flux. Not settled. Not like I’ve found my place. At what point do I become just a talker and not a doer. Am I already there? Looking back on the past three years, I wonder why I haven’t already reached maximum purposefulness. Yet while I say I’m in flux, am I really where I am meant to be? Where is the line between passion and waywardness? Because I seem to be dancing on it.

framed

Today I wound up talking to a retired professor of history for twenty minutes instead of just zipping out of the adjunct office space. He is a fascinating guy, and he offered insight into teaching students in our area. When he started teaching, he made a lot of waves by giving Ds and Fs instead of just passing students during a time when branches really earned their bad reputations. He talked about challenging students who really needed it, and not sweating those students that you just don’t reach. He also praised me for showing students how there is more to the world beyond Ohio. I felt accepted and worthwhile, and I do hope that at least a few students leave my class aware of a larger sense of human culture.

I realized that maybe this was the frame that I've been missing. I hit a wall when I made a feeble attempt at writing about local art; that wall was made of a mixture of self-doubt and inspiration without direction. I thought  it would be arrogant to think my express purpose is to spread culture to these students. As if I have returned from Manhattan, climbed down from the mountaintop, to preach my secular religion. But hearing another teacher chatting about the opportunity to bring my New York experience into my work as a positive made me realize that it’s all about the frame. I’m not here to impose my views, but to help other students replicate the same kind of journey I made: outward, beyond, further.

Perhaps coming to terms with leaving New York could also bring me to terms with my new purpose. I want to encourage critical thinking, literacy, self-expression, and above all, curiosity. I hope that, eventually, I’ll write some of my own personal insight about local art here, but I’m going to frame it with the differences between home and the outside world. Zanesville to New York, Ohio to the East Coast. And maybe I’ll prove to a few students that they truly are connected to the world beyond this town, all while proving to some people outside that there is more to this country than its coasts.

this is most taxing

Some might consider me "political" while others consider me not political enough. But I've been wondering lately about this whole 47% deal. I feel that, since I spent a good deal of time helping members of the 47% file their 2011 tax returns, I have a duty at the very least to offer my two cents.

After each political ad, from both sides, I keep asking "so what exactly is your alternative?" This goes double for Romney's statements concerning income taxes.

Many of those people he was talking about have unearned income. That is, income that they do not receive because of work or investment. Included in this category are Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Veterans Benefits that are not taxable. If it is not taxable, it is not included in their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), and, therefore, it does not factor into their calculated income tax.

So what's the alternative? Abolish SSI and these other benefits? Remember, veterans are included in this group. Or perhaps, make these benefits taxable? Just come out and say it.

Then there is the ugly monster called Social Security. Whether for retirement or disability, many people rely on Social Security as their sole income. Like the ones I noted above, Social Security is not taxable in that situation. And when the individual or couple has other income, it becomes a matter of proportions. If their income is above a certain level, a portion of their Social Security Benefits may be taxable.

So, again...withhold these payments? Or tax 100% of them? Just tell us.

Now, regardless of income, there are other elements in place that ease the tax burden. You may claim exemptions for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. These reduce your AGI, thereby reducing your calculated income tax. There are other adjustments as well, including one for student loan interest paid during the tax year. And, of course, the standard or itemized deductions, plus credits, both refundable and non-refundable, that may reduce the amount of tax you owe.

Read carefully here, kiddies, because this is why the 47% or whatever number you subscribe to is not just a bunch of lazy-ass freeloaders. There are some of us who (gasp) don't make much money. One such as myself might claim a personal exemption, report my loan interest paid, take the standard deduction, and voila! I owe no more tax. Further, the tax that was withheld from my paychecks (yes, multiple checks, multiple jobs...bums work hard, you know), is subject to be refunded. In the end, I have in the minds of conservatives not paid income tax. Nevermind that I did pay into Social Security and Medicare.

Now, Mr. Romney, what is your alternative? Would you like to get rid of exemptions? Deductions? Refundable credits? And will these changes apply to 100%, or 47%? Please, tell me. I am, after all, an independent female voter in a swing state. Impress me.

Multi-generational

I should be ashamed...according to some. I am a Boomerang Child.

I take a little solace in the reports of a Pew study from earlier this year that describe the 29% of young adults ages 25-34 years old that have moved back into the nest. A whopping 78% of my boomerang brethren reported being happy with their new living arrangements, although nearly that same amount say they can't afford to live the life they want. Statistical vindication for me, I suppose.

However, I found that Pew Research Center report through an editorial in my local newspaper that gave neither solace nor vindication. There's this Tom Purcell guy that lamented how unabashed we boomerang kids are. Now I'm not sure when exactly Purcell was a twenty-something, but I'm guessing early 80s. He goes on describing his career path, hopping from job to job and bad investment to bad investment before finally making the move. And he highlighted the stigma of "able-bodied fellows in their 20s, adults by any measure" who move back in with Mom and Dad.

When asked about it, he lied. This guy actually told people it was his parents who made the bad investments and lost their shirts! And if anyone knew the truth, he avoided them. Maybe that's why I can't quite hate him too much...wow, I feel the exact same way. Every time a church lady asked what I've been doing, I panicked. When my dad went into detail about my situation with a family friend, I freaked out. I don't want anyone to know. If you're reading this, and I haven't talked to you in forever, now you know why. The cat is out of the bag.

About once a week I wonder what might have been if I had soldiered on and gotten a job as a shop girl in New York, instead of Zanesville. Less frequently, I think about what I would have missed if I had not moved back. I don't exactly lie about it; I prefer to spin it as taking care of Dad and the house. I haven't really thought until just now what would have been different if Mom were still around. I might not have moved back in that case.

Despite the might-have-beens, there are reasons not to be embarrassed. Like many boomerang children, I am not a freeloader playing videogames in Dad's basement. I'm not constantly cleaning like Cinderella, either, but I consider that being human. We contribute, in rent or chores or electric bills, and, in most cases, it benefits the parents, too. I don't think my dad has had to buy toilet paper for three years now.

Anyway, what's the big deal? I can only attribute it to white American culture, this stigma, this obligatory sense of shame. It's the minorities, the immigrants, who are known for cramming multiple generations into one household. And that cramming has been a sign of poverty and desperation that better Americans either scoff at or ignore.

That's a load of bunk, though. It isn't some immigrant trend invading our shores. Back in 1940, 27.7% of adults ages 25-34 lived in multi-generational homes, according to Census data. With the current trend, builders are designing and marketing homes specifically for multiple generations to share. To be fair, part of that trend includes the reverse: parents moving in with adult children (for real, though, not just a lie to hide Purcell's shame). They do it just as we do it...when we have to.

My point is, who cares if I'm embarrassed or not? When resources are scarce, you band together to share what little you have. When your giant mess-up of a gamble blows up in your face, and you have no hope of being a fabulous Manhattanite, you move back to Ohio. Screw you, Purcell!

Honestly, though, what was once financial necessity (and, yes, with a dash of giving up in the face of adversity mixed in there, too) has almost become preferential choice. I choose to stay here...because of my teaching position, because I can put more money toward other bills, and because I've heard about others having quite a tough time finding housing of their own around here. And as a friend told me, living alone has its advantages and disadvantages.

I recall wanting my own apartment in NYC. So badly. Again, friends pointed out the obvious cons: safety, for one. There are advantages to sharing a dwelling: dividing up chores, splitting rent, sharing food, conversation (with someone other than the cat), and so on and so forth. Yet roommates are for those who have not yet "made it." College students and the like. Roommates that are parents, well...that's just crazy talk. There is the expectation that the shared living situation is temporary. A stepping stone to the American Dream of owning one's own house. Well, for me, more like renting my own small apartment.

But do I have to live alone to be on my own? Is living alone really that important to be considered successful, to be considered an adult? Does my living arrangement truly knock me back a decade in society's measure of maturity?

Why do we think in such linear terms? Trajectory, that's my enemy. High School--->College--->Job--->Family.  That is the expected and accepted path. A straight line with no detours. That is exactly what I have deviated from, by choice and otherwise. That is why some look at me with...pity? Disappointment? Fear of becoming just like me? I hopped off the well-beaten path. Though with today's trends, I'd argue there are a bunch of newly blazed trails out there. It's natural for someone who is stuck in their ways to look on this new phenomenon and tsk. I'm seeing way too much of the linear and the literal though. In this issue and in others. 

Perhaps that is why I am so unhappy so often. I don't look at the state of the world and tell myself, "That's the way it's always been." I ask, "Why does it have to be this way?" And of course, there's no answer.

What is "it" all about?

No, I am not trying to question the "Hokey Pokey."  I'm thinking about communication.

The second supervisor I ever had once told me that "you really get it."  That's why she liked me.  I get it.  She repeated this a couple times once, enough to make me wonder if I really do get it.  What is it?  My job?  Well, yes, I "get" that, as in I understand it.  If I didn't, I'd ask for clarification.  That is...unless my worst fear came true and I'm clueless about my own cluelessness.  The horror.  To be without knowledge, to have not even enough wherewithal to remedy the lack of knowledge.  But that's a whole other layer of paranoia that we don't need to pile on right now.

I've been told it's rude to correct people.  But I just can't stop myself sometimes.  Of course, occasionally, I've sat there and let the voice in my head correct you.  Yes, you.  One of tonight's Jeopardy questions was "Who was Socrates?" and that got me recalling 5th Grade Social Studies, during which the teacher quickly offered us a drive-by of Western civ. before moving on to the eminently more important American history.  To review the Greece unit, a classmate was at the board jotting important things to know.  Like "soccer tees."  I heard the teacher say "Socrates," and it took me a while to figure out why the kid was writing something about soccer.  Well.  Because it is soccer, not the outcast, doomed philosopher, that was firmly entrenched in this boy's adolescent mind.  Not a bad thing per se, but in the scheme of learning about ancient Greece and being tested on it...yes, kind of a bad thing.

While amusing, the hazy memory also reminds me of the anxiety I face every week teaching.  Do they hear the words coming out of my mouth, and think of something completely different?  Something other than what they've read in the book or seen on the screen?  Are my vocabulary terms and concepts as easily misconstrued as a random pronoun? The kid heard "soccer tees," if you recall.  What are my students coming up with instead of "Monet"?

Part of my job is to make Monet more than a foreign word.  To attach the name permanently to the concepts of the Impressionist himself.  The antecedent, if you will.  But pronouns are tricky, even in English.  It's the easiest way to confuse people.  Toss out a few "its," "thises," and "thats" and you've got a recipe for "huh"?

Of course, you know what you mean.  You know to which antecedent you are referring.  But are you communicating that important piece of the puzzle?  Nope.  That's one of my pet peeves while grading, a lack of reference.  I can guess what they're talking about, but part of the test is to express that concept.  Not dance around it.

One of my current supervisors always throws me for a loop by asking half-questions.  She knows the full question inside her head, but all I hear is "Do we have that number in the database?"  Kindly, gently, I probe, which number for which organization?

It comes down to, I suppose, say what you mean and mean what you say.  As I have alluded to it before, I have a difficult enough time wondering what horrible, negative things you are thinking about me without sweating the small stuff.

But what about when you use "it" to convey your own pomposity?  (I like typing that word.)  One of the forgettable contestants on American Idol made some odd speech when he was told he made it through:  "You've got to have 'it'," he said.  Referring to his own talent in this way made Simon Cowell wish he could rescind the invitation.  Not that he doesn't agree.  What do you suppose "X-factor" means?  A fancy pronoun.  A quite over-teased and advertised one, too.  Would it have been better to say "You've got to have singing ability, confidence, stage presence, and sex appeal"?  Lacks punch.  Or the other American Idol I cannot remember, the Brooklyn girl who gets up at five am for 100 situps and a jog:  "I worked hard for this."  Not her talent...her abs, of course, exposed by a skimpy top and Vanna White gestures as she utters "this."  Cheapening the grammar.

Pronouns and other stand-ins for big ideas are infinitely useful, but we must use them responsibly.  Until we develop telepathy and communication as we know it just collapses.  No pronouns, no metaphors, just a Vulcan mind-meld.  And as a wannabe scholar, that I certainly do not get.

My Mother's Thoughts I

I found a project, as if I needed more to do during Tax Season.  While sorting some of my mother's things so Dad could (eventually) repaint his bedroom, I found a bunch of old folders.  The pocket kind with colorful patterns or pictures on them.  One had a couple sheets of old notebook paper with my mother's unique, precise script.  At the top, she had simply written "Thoughts," and proceeded to list quotes that I can only assume had inspired her.  Some are familiar, like some lyrics by John Lennon, and some I had to look up.  I'd like to share these thoughts one at a time.

You talk when you cease to be at peace with your thoughts.


It's a quote from Khalil Gibran, a Lebanese-American poet known for The Prophet.  I found several Khalil Gibran books, including that one, while sorting books and other things when I first moved back.  What interests me most is the book's connection to 60s counterculture.  Like The Lord of the Rings, it regained popularity decades after it was first published.

Dad describes Mom as being quite conservative when they met.  But in my own conversations with her, I definitely detected a liberal streak.  I believe she called me her little hippie without any derision.  Now, she graduated from high school in 1968, a very tumultuous year, and despite my recommendation, she declined to watch the movie Bobbie because she lived through it.  I never did figure out if she picked a side, anti-war or whatever the opposite is.

Being raised in rural Ohio does tend to give one conservative leanings.  It's a sheltered childhood.  But I find that my Mom and I are very alike in that we have defied that rural stereotype, thinking independently and, by virtue of what we read and what we see, often leaning the other way.

I began with this quote because I often chide myself for talking too much.  Especially with coworkers, I feel like I need to zip it and fly under the radar.  But I am not at peace with my thoughts...they fill my head with fears and worries about work, about coordinating tax volunteers and teaching next quarter.  Like a kettle coming to boil, you've got to say something when the thoughts reach a certain temperature.

I can read it both ways.  As a reason, a rationale for speaking up, and also as a symptom, as if talking is the effect of a tempestuous mind but not necessarily the release, the cure, that I sometimes hope it is.

Either way, it's a discovery of a new connection, a philosophical link to the mind of my mother.