Monday, March 2, 1998
USG's goals not truly serving student body
F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, "action is character." It is not what we say or what we mean that matters, but what we actually do that counts.
The same holds true for the Undergraduate Student Government.
I'm tired of hearing how it needs more recognition. I'm tired
of hearing how it needs more support. What it needs is to actually
do something.
This entire academic year we have heard of nothing but schemes
and strategies designed at bringing USG more into the spotlight
-- USG Sucks Day, its new communication committee and its elaborate
plan to distribute free root beer.
USG has deviated from its stated intent. Its purpose is to represent
the students at this campus, not to represent itself to the students.
I applaud its attempts to obtain a fall break. However, aside
from this recent effort, I have seen no real action take place
this year.
Please do not site its State College Borough Council efforts and
the 24-hour HUB, both of which took place last year.
On Thursday, we heard of yet another plan designed to promote
our student government. This time it appears that USG cannot even
agree on how to execute its own publicity. Are we supposed to
believe that such a body can mobilize in an effort to affect the
decisions of faculty, administration and state government?
Accusations that the students at this University are unaware of
the existence of USG are unfounded. We all know that it exists.
The fact of the matter is that a great deal of students simply
do not care about a bureaucracy that neither considers nor affects
their everyday lives. In order for USG to get the recognition
it so strongly desires, it should stop concerning itself with
publicity and start to listen to the student voice.
When action is taken, everyone will be aware of the true character
of our Undergraduate Student Government.
I apologize if members of USG believe their job is thankless,
but USG leaders have to find a way to justify their stipends and
their right to travel to other schools on University money to
attend embellished meetings. USG is composed of intelligent, thoughtful
individuals who have a genuine concern for the welfare of the
student body. If those individuals focused on a real goal, I see
no reason why anything would stand in their way.
Matthew Clifford
junior-physics
Active learning must not be taken too far
This letter is a warning for ALL students, faculty and administrators involved in the ongoing discourse about Penn State's direction toward "active learning."
I am in full support of the new general education requirements
and believe active learning, which I define as teaching students
the tools for continuous learning, is exactly the approach all
educators and students should be taking.
However, I am concerned based on some statements in Friday's The
Daily Collegian. Especially a statement by Spiro Stefanou, associate
director for the Schreyer Institute for Innovation in Learning,
that "active and collaborative learning is defined as student
discussion with emphasis on team problem solving and critical
thinking."
Problem solving and critical thinking are great, but the words
"student discussion" severely limit this definition.
I fear that in our race for active learning, this student team
approach may lead to a new "educational downsizing,"
pushing total responsibility for learning down to the student.
Some, yes. All, no. I don't need to pay more than $10,000 a year
to learn from my peers.
Four of us can easily use our $40,000 to buy a boat and learn
from each other as we sail the Caribbean. I pay $10,000 a year
to learn from faculty, sources of vast pools of knowledge, supplemented
with all the additional resources at Penn State.
For everyone, especially the students, please be careful that
active learning does not become "student teaching."
I have always worked with groups of friends, but this is outside
of the classroom, in studying and solving homework problems. Some
of my most important learning has come from late-night discussions
in a dorm hallway with friends.
I am one of the strongest supporters of the new general education
policy and that is why I feel it is necessary to offer my thoughts
on this issue. Lecture classes are not always bad. I've had some
great lecture classes that would be destroyed by small group learning
teams.
Don't get me wrong. I think this University is taking giant positive
leaps forward in preparing the curriculum for the 21st century.
But remember, the focus of the new general education policy is
to offer "opportunities" for new learning by supplementing
what works and replacing what doesn't. Please don't throw away
good things, just because we now have access to a new toy.
Mike Platz
student University Faculty Senator, engineering
