Visual Rhetoric

 
    This picture ties together two topics. One concerns the end of tuition assistance to US service members due to federal budgets cuts.  The other concerns illegal immigrants qualifying for in-state tuition.  The picture is meant to incite shock and anger.  It shows a wounded army vet with prosthetic legs next to a photo of a group of rowdy people of Hispanic heritage.  When people think of illegal immigrants they often picture Mexicans.  One girl in the photo almost appears to be laughing and giving the veteran the finger.   The words on top simply asks the reader in red letters to 'guess who gets tuition assistance?'  The message is clear and to the point.  It basically questions the actions and priorities of our government.
     The political advertisement relies on pathos to incite both sympathy toward the veteran and anger towards illegal immigrants and the government. At the same time it simplifies or distorts both issues. The end of tuition assistance only applied to US service members currently in active duty not veterans.  For veterans there is the both the Montgomery and Post 9/ll GI Bill which provides monthly payments for veterans enrolled at an accredited school.  So the veteran pictured here can still get educational benefits from the government.
   Not all states provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.  And in the states that do provide, not all illegal immigrants will receive it.  Most states require the undocumented student to have resided in the state for a certain amount of years and to have graduated from a high school within the state.  
And they don't qualify for financial aid, so they still pay for their education unassisted.
    Thus this picture may be effective in communicating the message but it does so through highlighting a few parts of the truth.
 
 

My Scholarly Source

    My topic for my research paper is about the state of Texas providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens.  I've located a scholarly source that I can use for my paper.  The article is entitled 'Undocumented College Students, Taxation, and Financial Aid:  A Technical Note."  I believe this article to be a scholary scource because it was published in The Review of Higher Education which is an academic journal.  The publisher is Johns Hopkins University Press which sounds official.  The author Michael A. Olivas is a law professor from the University of Houston.  The contents of the article does not seem to be addressed for a general audience.  The typical audience seems to be other law professors or students.  Thus all of these factors lead me to conclude that this is a scholary source.
   The article begins with how the federal government treats the issue of undocumented college students.  In the case of Plyler v. Doe, the US Supreme Court ruled that each state has the power to grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.  Each state may set up it's own standards that determines whether an illegal immigrant can qualify for in-state tuition.
  The article goes on to provide examples of state cases that challenged a state's provisions regarding the issue.  Some cases such as Merten v. Doe invovled plaintiffs that challenged Virginia's refusal of granting undocumented students in-state tuition.  Other cases such as Day v. Sibelius challenged the laws that granted in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.  In those times the cases were dropped or ruled in favor of the state.  The point that the author is trying to make is that the states have the right determine whether or not to grant in-state tuition to undocumented children.
    The author then goes on to talks about federal action such as the failed attempts to get the DREAM act passed, which will provide a path for citizenship to undocumented students.  He also brings up the issue of financial aid and the complexity of state tax laws.  He finally challenges the categories of resident and non-resident aliens as being to limiting because illegal immigrants don't fall into either categories.
   The purpose of the article seems to be educating people regarding this little known issue.  The author appeals to the reader's logos by providing factual information to establish his point.  His point being that more attention should be brought upon this issue.  Overall the author writes an effective and convincing article.

25 by 25?

   Recently the Dwight Look College of Engineering announced a plan to increase enrollment from 10,000 to 25,000 by 2025.  As they say everything is or 'must be' bigger in Texas.  In a press release posted on the web, 25 by 25, they cited research conducted by the Texas Workforce Commision.  The research predicts a "19 percent growth in engineering jobs" within the state.  Thus the school believes in increasing enrollment to fill in this predicted void.
   As a current student, I am a little ambivalent on this goal.  25,000 does sound impressive, but is the school emphasizing quantity over quality?  Will increasing enrollment place more strain on both teachers and classroom resources?  Now the press release says that the school will pause this plan in the next twelve years if it perceives a drop in the quality of education. But at the current level of enrollment, I feel there is already a strain on these resources.  I've been in lab where not all the equipment worked.  This resulted either in long frustrating hours troublehsooting my work or forming groups of students to share on piece of lab equipment. 
   Also where do they see this projected growth in the demand of engineers?  Right now the workforce seems to be saturated with new graduates.  The perception I get from potential employers is one of snobbery because they often overlook your past accomplishments and reduce your resume to a simple number.  They have the upper hand in the market.  So I don't think increasing an already high supply of graduates will help the situation.  Maybe it will ensure that only the best and brightest recieve employment but that means time and money for the rest of us.
   What are your opinions? Is the school's goal of increasing enrollment worthwhile or misguided?
     

   
   

An Animal's Worth

        An article in Discover Magazine asks a very compelling question.  It's entitled "Should conservationists allow some species to die out?"  It talks about the California Condor which is an endangered species of vultures.  In 1987 the population of condors was only 22.  Since then, conservationists have been devoting time and research to help the species survive.  But today, or as of March 2011, the population is only 381.  Of that number only 192 live in the wild.  The article says that a population of about 5000 will ensure the survival of a certain species.  The program devoted to helping the California Condors costs about 4 million dollars per year.
        So the article asks if whether saving the Condor is a lost cause.  Should conservationists instead focus on endangered species that are more likely to survive?  The article provides arguments for both sides the debate.
      On one side it says that the limit on resources and money must force us to identify endangered species that have the best chance of surviving.  "Some endangered species are far more likely to recover than others, so we should identify those and save as many as we can."
     On the other side, some conservationists argue that this prioritizing of species to get 'cheap wins'   can do unforeseen ecological damage.  They say that a rare species is "typically poorly studied, so the easiest to conserve might not be the most ecologically important."

     There are good points brought out on both sides of the debate.  And to be honest, I'm not sure which side to be on.   In an ideal world we should try to save all the endangered species. Who are we as a species on this earth to decide which which animal survives and which dies out?  Most of these species are endangered because of our actions; whether it's over-hunting, pollution, or destruction of their habitats.
    But we have to be practical, the world is not ideal, resources are finite.  We seem to have no choice but to pick out which endangered species is worth saving. I'm just glad I don't have to make the decision of determining an animal's worth.

Struggles with Academic Writing

Academic writing has always been a struggle for me.  Even writing this blog is a slow and painful process.  That’s what I think of writing in school; as a drawn out and long process.  I don’t think of it as a chance to freely express myself, I think of it has a chance to mess up and sound like an idiot.  I guess the reason for my struggle is because of the differences between the language required  in school and the language I use everday with my friends and family.

           The goal of any language is to help  you effectively get your point across to another person.   At home I don’t have this problem.  When you’re talking with a person in an informal setting, I feel that in addition to the words you say, you can also use other means to get your point across.  You can change the tone of your voice, use body language,  use sarcasm, and you can even curse.  All of these help me to get my point across and are part of the language I use at home.  I’m not restricted by the syntax of my spoken sentences, or merely the words I use.

         I view academic writing as restricted.  It’s restricted to the words on the paper, and the required formality.  I have to maintain a serious and academic tone, I can’t use humor to prove a point because I’m afraid that it would sound demeaning.  I feel that all the tools that are part of  language at home are missing in an academic setting.   You also have to pay attention to the audience you’re writing to.  And that can be the hardest thing to do because you can’t physically see the audience.  I mean there’s no instant feedback to know if you’re conveying the message correctly.

        Now I don’t mean to sound so negative when it comes to writing at school, because I’m still able to complete the assignments.  The way I deal with my struggles with formality is to first think about the question or prompt.  After brainstorming and getting a good idea of the structure, I begin the paper.  I always worry about my spelling and grammar, and that can limit the flow of ideas,  so I turn off the spell and grammar check on the computer.  I could also just write on paper but I’m so used to typing out my ideas.  And that’s how I’m able to deal with the struggles of writing an academic paper.       

What's it mean to be Greek?

  For the recent assignment of my English class I had to read an excerpt from "Hunger of Memory" by Richard Rodriquez.  In the story Rodriquez recounts growing in a Mexican-American household, and his initial struggles with learning English.  Spanish was his first language but as he grew older and overcame his struggles with English, English became his primary language.  He was still able to understand Spanish but he could not speak it fluently. 
    His childhood is very similar to my own.  I was born in Greece and came to the US with my family when I was about 6.  I initially spoke Greek but I'm no longer fluent, what remains of the language are bits and pieces.  There are early home videos of my brother and I speaking in Greek, and it's like watching completely different people.  Now I can recount certain words, but like the author I can't put together a coherent sentence.  If someone were to ask me "How do you say this or that in Greek?" I would not be able to tell them.  
     When I'm with my parents I can almost follow conversations in Greek between my Mom and Dad.  My Mom can ask me a question in Greek and I will respond in English. When friends are over and witness these exchanges, they thinks it's the weirdest thing.
      And it's only the Greek that my parents speak that I can understand.  I once went to the Embassy in Houston and the lady working there initially spoke to me in a kind of 'rapid fire' Greek.  To me it sounded as if she was speaking complete gibberish.  I could only shake my head in response and then see a look of disappointment in her face.  I guess my parents maybe speak a different or slower dialect of Greek.
       Such encounters often make me feel guilty.  In a blog from a fellow classmate, The Clash of Culture, it says that language often is the root of a culture.  So does my ignorance of the Greek language exclude me from being a part of Greek culture?  Or does simply my blood or inheritance qualify me as a Greek?   These questions often resurface when I see distant relatives or when friends ask me to translate something from English to Greek.
     But in his essay, Rodriquez goes on to say that though some intimacy is lost between him and his family there is some that remains.  That intimacy "is not created by a particular language; it is created by intimates."  So what I should be concerned with is not whether I identify as a Greek person but rather if I can still identify with my immediate Greek family.  That is the only culture I should be concerned with, one that is a cross between Greek and American.

a student venting

        I'm currently an engineering student at a university.  It seems to me  that what the culture of the school emphasizes is the ability to get things done.  Whether it's lab reports, hw assignments, projects, or preparing for quizzes and exams.  From my perspective every week is just filled with deadlines.  Now this is certainly a valuable skill to have; to be able to jumble many assignments and allocate your time properly.  But how these assignments get done seems to fall to the wayside.

      There are classes in computer programming where a new programming language is taught on a power point presentation, and then the teacher assigns labs that require students to write programs in this new language.  If the written programs do not work during the lab session, points are deducted.  This like showing people a picture of a piano, explaining verbally what the notes should sound like, and then expecting them to be able to compose music.

     Can these seemingly infinite series of assignments push students to do something unethical?  Unless a student is very talented; can understand concepts the moment it is introduced in class, or lives like a monk; dedicating every hour to practice and study, throwing away weekends at the library, is it reasonable to make such high demands of him or her?  

   

What do you think?  

 

Women and Combat Arms

             In January 2013 the Petagon officially lifted the ban on women in combat roles.  In the Army units are designated as either combat or non-combat arms.  Women were barred from serving in combat arms.  Combat arms are units such as infantry and artillery.  They are traditionally placed on the front lines.  But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have blurred these lines and thus women and men fought along side each other.
           I've found two blogs that address this topic and both promote lifting the ban.  They are "Women in Combat(Roles)" by David Silbey  and "Women in Combat" by Mike LaBossiere.  Both bloggers use logic to defy stereotypes about the capabilities of women in combat.
           It's funny to note that Silbey's blog relies on testimony from another article written by himself.  He actually uses block qoutes to reference himself.  But that does not detract from his argument.  He makes an appeal to ethos when he addresses typical arguments that are made against women in combat.  That women threaten unit cohesion, are physically weaker than men, and the possibility of sexual assault. 
            He doesnt try to counter the first argument but as regards to women being physically weaker he provides an interesting fact about the physical requirements for British men serving in WWI.  He points out that these requirments are typically met today by the average woman, that back then working class men who failed to meet the requirements served anyway, and boys as young as 12 were able to slip through.  He concludes this point by saying that "there are no definitive standards on what makes a soldier."  While I don't necessarily agree with the last sentiment, I do agree that when there is a drastic need to be filled physical standards do become lax.

       The second blog by LaBossiere makes a stronger case for lifting the ban because he both addresses and refutes each of the counter arguments made.  As regards to the threat of unit cohesion, LaBossiere points out that the military provides enough training to make professionals out of the men and women.  That even in the stress of combat most are capable of acting as professionals.
      As regards to men being physically superior to women, he logically points out that this is a mere generality.  That there are clearly individual women who are stronger than the average man.  He actually proposes a solution to this problem.  As of right now there are two seperate standards as regard to physical fitness for men and women.  The author suggest tieing physical standards not to gender but to the job specified in the military.
     This is a clever solution that I didn't even consider while serving in the army.  This will essentially remove the perception of double standards regarding men and women in the military.  Double standards that I can attest too caused real resentment amongst the men in the units.


Thus both articles provided support of lifting the ban of women in combat.  Instead of making impassioned pleas they realied on logic to support their arguments.

Are Reason and Faith Compatible?

         I just finished reading an interesting book called "Pope Joan" by Donna Woolfolk Cross.  The story takes place in Europe during the ninth century.  It's about a woman named Joan who throughout most of her life was disguised as a man and worked within the clergy.  As a bright scholar and talented medical practitioner she was able to climb the ranks of the Roman clergy and eventually reach the top post of the Pope.  The story is based on a legend which the author pointed out could have some truth but is vehemently denied by the Catholic church.
         There were many interesting points about the story, but what stood out to me especially was what the author posed as a question in the afterword.  One of the Joan's tutors, a priest and scholar, said that "a lack of faith leads people to fear reason."  The author directly asks the reader if reason and faith are truly compatible?  It's a very interesting question because at first I thought that these two things are completely separate of each other.  I said to myself how can a belief in an eternal spirit or something not tangible have anything to do with logic, or learning of the physical world?
       But after giving it more thought, I think that it is not what god or spirit a religion holds up but more about the code of ethics or values that make religion compatible with the physical world of reason.  Many religions espouse values such as temperance, fraternity, strict adherence to scripture.  These values instill a discipline within a person to avoid temptations or over-indulgences of alcohol, drugs, and other pleasures.  A mind clear of these 'clouds' is more limber and can focus, solve problems, or learn abstract concepts.
         Religion establishes routine. Going to church on a regular basis or even just praying everyday gives a person stability and also requires discipline.  A person that allocates his or hers free time to a fixed schedule is better prepared to devote time for studying, or doing homework, or writing endless papers and lab reports.   Routine better prepares a person for scholarly work.
         A church, temple or mosque also gives people a forum to be social.   Whenever people group together, ideas can be exchanged and debated.  A proper debate is grounded in reason and can foster new ideas.  Also these communities provide people with support, or gathering of friends and family.    A person with support can go out and pursue their worthwhile goals whether it's academic or something else.
        So my point is probably better stated as a faith does not directly tie in with reason but the values and routines involved with that particular faith can help promote it.  What are your opinions about this?  Can one provide a counter to this argument?  

Defining Culture

            For me culture defines the customs, ideas, and collective knowledge of a group of people.  A group of people can refer to a large town, a small family, or even a few close friends.   As Clifford Geertz says in Interpretation of Culture, culture is the web that binds people within a group.   It also defines the way people will interact within that group.

            Take for example a school such as Texas A&M University.  The academic culture draws some fifty thousand students together in the pursuit of knowledge.  This culture defines how exactly that pursuit is carried out.  The knowledge is learned in a classroom environment where one teacher lectures to a group of students.  Custom dictates that each student must prove the mastering of that knowledge through papers, exams, or projects.  The customs of this culture are strictly defined.

            When I hear the word “cultured,” I first think of classical music, literature, and Frasier Crane.  But after giving it some more thought, I realized that a cultured person is more than someone who is well versed in the masterpieces of his own culture.  To be cultured is to be willing to understand or experience different cultures.  This requires stepping out of the protective web that is formed by your own background and beliefs.