Doyle’s article, “Campus Sex, Campus Security”, starts out by explaining the protesting at UC Davis and the actions that were taken to deal with it. The university’s Chancellor, Linda Ketehi, defends her actions by saying that “We were worried at the time about that [non-affiliates] because the issues from Oakland were in the news and the use of drugs and sex and other things, and you know here we have very young students…” (Doyle 15-16). Ketehi then goes on to say that she was worried about being “in violation” with Title IX. I think that she was wrong in her actions of stopping the innocent protect by using police force and pepper spray to end it and I think that she only used Title IX as an excuse to protect herself and the university. However, her statement raises the question of how well is Title IX actually doing its job? As described by Doyle, Title IX is a “federal legislation that bans sex discrimination in all educational institutions receiving federal funding” (Doyle 17). As the legislation clearly states, it bans sex discrimination. After watching the videos in class of all of the girls who were sexually assaulted and the universities did nothing to help their cases, I’m not sure if the title is as effective as it’s made out to be. All colleges say that they really do care about the safety of their students, but as seen in the videos we watched in class, the colleges made the sexually assaulted victims seem like the people who were wrong, not the ones who raped them. When students told the university, the questions asked were toward the victim, and in the end, the one who assaulted the victims were given no punishment. Where is Title IX in all of these situations? Parents are sending their children to college, thinking that the university is going to take proper course of action in cases like these. However, that is not the case at all. The universities shown in the video cared solely about the lawsuits and bad reputation that the university would get if the assaults were to be known. Therefore, they tried to cover the situation and chose not to inflict punishment on the assaulter. Is Title IX working in situations like these? What is the solution to the current problem of universities just allowing their students to be sexually assaulted with no consequences?
The article for The Economist, “Creative Destruction”, portrays the option of taking online college courses as opposed to being on campus everyday and physically going to classes. The major benefit of taking online courses is the cost. People are now offered college courses online for a fraction of the cost of being at school. Being able to take courses online is a new option given to people because of the annual increasing cost to go to college. The article states that “In America government funding per student fell by 27% between 2007 and 2012, while average tuition fees, adjusted for inflation, rose by 20%.” Because of this, college is becoming less affordable to the public. However, if more people are going to be taking courses online instead of going to college, job employment in the college education industry is likely to drop 30% while some college professors and staff will become unemployed. In addition, more than 700 institutions will close. Are online college courses a good or bad thing for society? Do you think that there is a way to for both options to be viable without destroying one of them?
The cost of attending college is inevitably becoming too expensive for the average american to pay for. While going to college and earning a degree is a somewhat necessary part of being able to get a good job that is going to pay off in the future, many parents are now unable to provide this privilege to their children because of the increasing costs. Not only does attending require paying the tuition fees, but there are several other big payments that are required of students like textbooks, meal plans, and joining clubs and activities. For all of the money that is spent on these things, parents are expecting that their children are getting a great and efficient education. However, this is not always the case. Harker portrays the truth when he says, “Professors decide what to teach and when, depending on their interests and availability. Students choose from a buffet of courses and schedules designed to suit instructors. The system is teacher-centric” (Harker). Education needs to become “learner-centric” as Harker then states in the article. Should it be up to the professor as to when class is held and what they will be teaching? Or should the students be able to choose what they wish to be taught and when?
Ubiquitous: (adj.) present, appearing, or found everywhere
Stagnant: (adj.) showing no activity; dull and sluggish
Education: (noun) the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university