Page 2
University Daily Kansan Tuesday, January 11, 1955
Education, Not Gradepoints Should Be Aim of Students, Faculty
No matter how much our schools attempt to link themselves to progressive education and forward administration, there lingers still a bit of the archaic past that has done more to stifle learning than to give it a real meaning.
Grades go back as far as schooling, from the beginning of systematic education and from the first grade on. But grades do not go as far back as learning, and that is where the difference lies. If learning and grades were synonymous terms
If learning and grades were synonymous terms, there would be nothing about which to trouble ourselves. Unfortunately, as almost any student can affirm, grades have not always indicated the ability to learn or the consumption of learning.
Probably there isn't a student on the Hill who hasn't pulled through final week without wondering what he has learned and if his grades are a true indication of that learning. Too many times the grade indicates nothing at all—except for the fact that through diligent memory work he has acquired a grade.
Western Civilization, for example, is a fine course in itself. It is comprised of limitless material that the student can learn and should learn if he takes his education at all seriously. But there is no reason to deceive ourselves. Western Civ notes and cram courses have become part of the University curriculum. They are designed for one primary purpose—a grade. And that is just about all a student really acquires from a six-hour course designed to broaden cultural understanding.
Learning the history of western civilization is no longer a purpose. The purpose has shifted from true learning to a grade-grabbing game.
If Western Civilization were the only course on the Hill in the clutches of a grade system, the problem would not be so ugly. Western Civilization, at least, has pushed its all-too-apparent weakness into the open. Yet there are dark shadows of a lost learning and a grade-ruling emphasis in every college, school, and department of the University. Even then, the almighty grade point is not hidden very well. It has worked its way into the minds of almost everyone connected with education and shunned by about that many.
The old doctrine that grades encourage study was doomed from the beginning. For children who wouldn't study without a jab in the back, the grade system was fine. But for young men and women who have passed the adolescent stage and grope for something more or an understanding beyond childhood, grades are not important. Learning itself becomes important, not grades.
If a student has reached college age and doesn't want to learn, he has no business hampering the education of others by forcing an administration to give him an incentive to study.
If the University administration insists on treating its students like children, the students will act like children. The students may not get an education, but try as they might, they'll get grades.
-Gene Shank
Finals Influence Grades Too Much
At this time every semester students begin worrying about the old problem of final examinations, which may count up to 50 per cent of a student's course grade. It doesn't matter whether or not the student's work for the semester has been good, for in one two-hour period he may destroy any chance for getting the grade for which he has been working all semester.
At the University of Kansas where class attendance is required, it is ridiculous to let such a high percentage of the semester grade ride on one test, yet in many courses it does. Many professors say that if a student keeps up with his work during the semester he has nothing to worry about, but that is not necessarily true.
The final might be scheduled after the student has taken one or even two others on the same day, and by that time what he knows in the course is a blur. Sickness and numerous other factors can influence the way a student does on a final examination. Some persons get so nervous they are
unable to get what they actually know on paper
The final examination should not count amore than a regular hour test at a university where class attendance is required.
In a two-hour course there would be 32 hours in the 16 weeks, but knocking out two class periods for vacations, and two more for cuts, that leaves 28 hours. In proportion to the amount of time spent, the final should not count more than one-fourteenth of the semester grade.
If the pattern of previous years is continued, then students should not be forced to attend class regularly, because they are not actually getting any credit for it at the present time. They can go all semester and then have everything blow up in their faces in two hours.
Since this is the policy, the only class periods which should have required attendance are those when tests are given. The students should be able to come only when they want to the remainder of the time.
—Dana Leibengood
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
"I believe we pledged the Leroy Van DuPont chap since you were here last."
About Ava Gardner: How bare-foot can a contessa be? Or did you notice her feet?
The most unhappiest of them all will be the tear-stained little illiterates who couldn't live up to the flowing language of the English department.
Daily Hansan
. . .
University of Kansas Student Newspaper News Room, KU 251 Ad Room, KU 748 Member of the Inland Daily Press association. Associated Collegiate Press association. Advertising service. Vertailing service, 420 Madison, ave., N.Y. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $4.50 a year [add $1 a semester if in college]. Madison, Kan., every day during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays University holidays and examinations. Mail matters; matter, Sept. 17, 1910, at Lawrence, Kan.; post office under act of March 3, 1879.
Editorial Editor... Letty Lemon
Editorial Assistants ...
BUSINESS STAFF
EDITORIAL STAFF
NEWS STAFF
Business Mgr...Bill Tagart
Mgr...David Conley
Nat. Adv. Mgr...David Conley
Circulation Mgr..Kenneth Winston
Classified ..Leonard Juren
Adviser...David Conley
Executive Editor, Elizabeth Wohlgemuth
Managing Editors, John Hertmann
Michael Doyle
Nancy Neville
News Editor...Ron Grandon
Assistant News Editor...Gretchen Guernin
Louis Tolony
Wire Editor...Dana Loyle
Society Editor...Laverie Yates
Assist. Society Ed. Mary Bess Stephens
Feature Editor...Karen Hilmer
Adviser
Calder M. Pickett
Alert Preparedness Advised For Western Defense
This is a brand-new year—1955—but we're in the same boat we were in 10 years ago. And it's rocking pretty dangerously. We're still looking for peace. In 1945 we were on the offensive, today the problem is that of defense. That's the theme of a new book from across the Atlantic, "Strategy for the West," by Sir John Slessor of the Royal Air Force.
The conflict we face in 1955 is less of blood and bombs than of nerves and paper. It's a war of unreconcilable ideologies. To our antagonists, the Communists, man is little more than a brute. He is, in himself, of small value in the plan of the universe. Contrast this with our Christian philosophy.
What motivates this struggle? The Communist objective is ultimate domination of the world by the Kremlin. What of the West? Sir John defines our purpose simply but accurately. We seek to drive communism back behind its own frontiers and keep it there.
Thrusting back communism means proving to the world that our way of life and our philosophy are superior to that of Marx and Lenin. Once this truth is accepted communism will be rejected and eventually will lose its power.
Achievement of this object is possible. But only by the unified efforts of the West, based on spiritual values, and gone about with patience. Impatience could be fatal, for as Sir John points out, there is no short cut to lasting peace.
Just as dangerous is the tendency to ram our beliefs down the throats of others. A universal human reaction is that of dislike to being dictated to by foreigners.
We don't want war, but we can stay out of the way of bullets only by a policy of prevention, not avoidance. The free world has such a preventive weapon, the weapon of atomic power. Russia has this weapon too and is well-acquainted with the destruction the use of it would produce. Horrible as atomic power is, perhaps it is our best deterrent of all-out war.
But when Russia begins taking over our governments with the intention of destroying our political freedom, then it is essential that we resist this encroachment by every effective means.
A cardinal principle of military strategy is to be satisfied that the action will hurt the enemy more than it hurts us to make, prepare to use it, and employ it. The use of atomic power in a world which is fully armed does not meet this requirement. If the West is prepared to retaliate immediately and effectively to any act of Soviet aggression then the great Russian bear will think more than twice before he pulls the trigger.
What profit is there in such a war? It would gain the East or West nothing but oblivion. Surely Russia will not provoke this catastrophe—unless it is reasonably certain of coming out on top. And the only road to success is through the inability of the West to retaliate at once, without delay.
Therefore the policy of the West must be preparedness, wisely distributed among the various branches of the armed services. A land army is vital, but more important is modern, efficient air power coupled with atomic reserves—and enough of this in the right places.
The West must not arm itself into bankruptcy but on a scale to meet any aggression at any time. Russia will bide its time until it can satisfy the basic point of strategy—and it is our responsibility to make certain that time never comes. This is a policy of alert preparedness, of wearing down the opposition, of guarding against its infiltration, of fighting it psychologically through Radio Free Europe and similar media.
President Eisenhower calls for "peaceful co-existence." All right, we're for it. Just so we're armed and prepared to keep it peaceful. We're interested in preventing a war, not winning one. Not one of us can afford to even cat-nap at this stage of the game.
Judith Ferrell