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?