P o-a 2
University Daily Kansan
Friday, Dec. 12, 1958
Why They Fail
Thirty per cent of the students who took the English proficiency examination will fail it, if past statistics hold good. This is a black eye for any university.
Four reasons can be proposed to account for the high failure rate.
1. Students are stupid.
2. The test is too difficult.
3. High school English training is inadequate.
4. KU's English training is inadequate.
The first two reasons can be largely discounted. Most slow learners are weeded out in the first two years; the test is simply two short themes.
That leaves only failure somewhere in the education system.
It might be relevant to compare failure rates of
graduates from all Kansas high schools. If the results were sent to the schools, without comment, some improvement might result over the years.
Meanwhile, since KU must accept all qualified high school graduates, some action must be taken here. Ten hours of passing English work should enable anyone to pass the test. When ten hours are insufficient, a remedial course is needed to get the student up to college level.
This is not a pleasant prospect for a faculty already working full time. Instructors would rather work with bright students than take on more slow ones.
But under the present requirements, remedial courses would be the most feasible way to get college production from college students.
—Alan Jones
Name That Name
A college student uses his right name at weddings and in the student directory. Nowhere else.
Why this is so is a mystery to science, but it is a fact. That girl everyone knows as Taffy is actually named something like Teresa; Bucky's square handle is George; DeeDee is Dorothy.
An analysis of several types of nicknames may show why students encrust themselves with aliases.
First, there is the compulsive cutie. She thinks Albertina is too horrid a name, so she or her friends shorten it by stages. She becomes Bert, then Berry, then Bear, and finally winds up as Teddy.
Then we have the victim of circumstances. It is impossible for any girl named Janice, Jeanette, Janith, Jean, Janet, or Jeanne to be called anything but Jan.
A third category is the nickname, pinned on by a kid brother in a moment of stress. This group of names is noted for its nauseating qualities, and includes pearls like Bubba, Barbar, Orn, or any nonsense syllable. The unfortunate must be pitied, not scorned.
Or course, any person has some inherent right to choose his own name, and at first glance it seems harmless. But occasionally an editor, the alumni office, or the income tax men will want to reach one of these misnamed ones.
The name on file is Jan, so away go the file clerks. No Jan. The search then spreads to Jeanette, Janet, Janice, Janith, and Jeanne, and occupies the rest of the day for seven wageslaves.
And goodness, you should hear the names that Jan is called then. —A.J.
Editor:
I must thank the UDK for providing some data on a question. I have long wondered what percentage of a group had to be actively aroused in order for a journalist, in this case a student journalist, to accredit the "storm of protest" or "wave of enthusiasm" to the majority of the group.
UDK, Dec. 2, Page 1: "The wrath of the men of Kansas fell on the assistant society editor...takes her place among the all time controversial figures of KU journalism."
UDK, Dec. 8, Page 2: "Of 14 letters received on Saundra Hayn's article ... three were written...by women."
There are probably over 5,000 single male students at KU. An active response of 11 is a little less than one-fourth of one per cent. Lester E. Leaird
Emporia graduate student
Winter Notes
The Christmas campaign for major appliances is doomed to failure. How can you put a freezer in a stocking?
The office's sole remaining rugged individualist is weakening. He put chains on the car last night, and he has a nagging suspicion he's abandoned his principles.
UNI PRIT
Dailu Hansan
University of Kansas Student Newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, trieweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone Viking 3-2700
Telephone Vikking 3-2700
Extension 711 news room
Extension 111, news room
Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 420 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $4.50 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays, and examination periods. Entered as second-class matter Sept. 17, 1910, at Lawrence, Kan. post office under act of March 3, 1870.
News Department Malcolm Applegate, Managing Editor Business Department Bill Irvine, Business Manager Editorial Department Al Jones, Editorial Editor
2 Germans Give Views on Berlin and Reunification
A Berliner Calls Partition 'Absurd'
By Heinz Neunes
The Russian-created Berlin crisis has demonstrated to the world once again the absurdity and ever-present danger of the continuing division of Germany. In 13 years of post-war history, we Germans have learned the bitter fact that a solution of the vital question of reunification will be impossible so long as the prevailing mutual distrust between the two opposing camps of the world makes a military disengagement in Central Europe impossible.
Germany and her allies should work together to ease these tension. But an attitude of absolute toughness in dealing with the new Soviet challenge will certainly fall short of this aim. Ignoring both the Soviet proposal and the subsequent East German control over Allied traffic to Berlin will inevitably lead to a new blockade and bears the obvious risk of a war.
According to leading Western strategists, a military defense of Ecuador is only possible with atomic arms, which naturally would have to fall on the densely populated East German territory; and this aspect of "protection" is rather frightening.
Therefore, it should be an absolute requirement to defend Berlin by diplomatic means, and this way is by no means blocked by the Russian moves. The primary aim of the Russians is to reach a sort of diplomatic recognition of the East German puppet regime by the West, which would be implied by the acceptance of East German (instead of Russian) control over Allied traffic through their territory. According to international custom, this would not imply the recognition of the Communists as freely elected representatives of the people, as the example of diplomatic relations with Hungary shows.
On the other side, Chancellor Adenauer's decisive opposition to any kind of diplomatic contact with the East German Communist rulers could not hamper them in establishing their cruel and firm rule. But despite its obvious sterility, the Western powers have accepted Adenauer's concept. The hope remains that in the time left, a more realistic attitude can be developed.
Naturally, there can be no doubt that even acceptance of East German traffic control would not solve the problem forever, and this little concession can only mean a postponement of a more serious decision. But a postponemt is vital in the age of nuclear warfare, especially at a time when talks on a possible ban of nuclear weapons are likely to come soon.
and at the same time a first step toward solution of the whole German question. This chance lies within the Russian proposal for a free city of West Berlin itself.
There might be yet another chance which could mean a real solution for the Berlin problem
It is true that the West, which
would have to withdraw its occupation troops, bears the larger risk. Nevertheless, it might be possible to negotiate a plan giving effective military and economic guarantees for Berlin's security. This seems a possibility when we consider the presently accepted strategic plan of a nuclear defense of Berlin from a distance (West Germany), through which the 10,000 troops in West Berlin have lost practically all tactical significance.
If a workable solution could be found within the aspects of this plan, Berlin could continue to be the most important advertising window for our Western way of life. In addition, Berlin, free from any commitment to either military pact and free from the numerous spy organizations (which Russia has a right to protest against), could follow a policy of non-provocation and of "getting along" with both sides, as demonstrated successfully by Austria during recent years. It is beyond doubt that this example would contribute to a lessening of the European tension which keeps Germany divided.
Of course, many of the aspects presented here are still speculations, but speculations which should prevent us from throwing this plan into the wastebasket undiscussed. Only in discussion of different viewpoints can we achieve a solid basis for a decision.
Hamburg Student Answers Prof. Laird
By Achim Schrader
Prof. Laird's statements (on Berlin, UDK, Dec. 10) need an answer. First view: "The division is a healthy situation in terms of world peace." I doubt this. The continual stream of refugees from the Soviet zone into the Federal Republic drains that part of Germany by 3,500 people each week. Since 1948, almost 3 million of 18 million inhabitants have left their homes to choose freedom from oppression. Those are the best. They have to sacrifice their fairly good standard of living for an uncertain future in a free country.
Those who remain are Communists, old people, and those who still believe that flight is not a very re-
sponable way out. They have lived under tyranny now for more than 25 years. In a few more years, there will be no more resistance—active or passive. Then we will have an entirely communistic state in Central Europe.
Second view: "The West is happier with a weakened and divided Germany." Well, the world has had bad experiences with us Germans. We do regret that. But we have become a free and democratic country and a fair partner in European affairs.
On the other hand, the West has made great efforts to give us power again. The United States gave us financial help; she wanted us to have an army again and to join
NATO. She established missile bases in Germany and wants to give us atomic weapons also. Laet, not least, the U.S. government sponsors scholarships for us to study at KU and to enlarge our knowledge. In order to weaken us and our country? Certainly not!
One would think, then, that the Western powers do not want a powerful Germany, but do want a powerful guard at the Iron Curtain. If so, would they not be showing imperialistic attitudes? Now at least the U.S. administration does not have any attitudes like that. And that is probably the reason why Mr. Eisenhower said it again: That this country stands "firm on the rights and responsibilities to see that Germany is reunified under free elections."
Third view: "The Germans want badly to be reunited" and might therefore "throw caution to the wind." The majority of the citizens of Western Germany have been so busy for the last few years rebuilding their country and attaining a high standard of living that they just do not want any change.
Those who really want the reunification, and think about it, are the educated people, those whose families are split, the churches, the unions, industry, and the political parties. These know their responsibility for the common welfare. They will never throw caution to the wind. Eut meet of them, on the other hand, do not believe in the alternatives of the Cold War ideology. They are thinking of compromises, which could please
the West as well as Russia and our fellow European countries.
Since the so-called policy of force failed again, and since the Western Powers are pushed into defense in the Berlin crisis, I think the time has come to evaluate those plans thoroughly.
And even if all of us, the Western powers and the Germans, do not know what to do, Prof. Laird should at least help by stopping a creation of fear about possible reactions of the German people. That only plays into the hands of the Communistic propaganda.
The Germans know quite a bit about communism, since these people are our unwanted neighbors. We showed that we are able to cooperate. We will not lose our nerve.