EDITOR
Erin Gibson
OPINION
EDITOR
CUff Hicks
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Nancy Christensen
Brad Davis
Sam McKewon
Jeff Randall
Bret Schulte
Our
VIEW
Grading
perfection
High expectations
steal children s time
The Jan. 25 issue of Time magazine
wants to shock us with its revelation that
kids are doing more homework these days.
An article in it chronicles of the story of
an 11-year-old girl who has to do math, a
book report, fill out a map, and for reasons
not disclosed, review an entire semester’s
worth of human physiology. Apparently,
this is the trend all over the Unites States.
Time magazine is trying to tell us chil
dren are doing too much homework these
days. A University of Michigan study used
in the article cites that children between the
ages of 9 and 11 are doing about 3'/2 hours
a week of homework. That’s too much, huh?
No, quite the opposite. Homework is a
necessary part of learning at a young age. It
teaches discipline. It helps cognitive and
recognition skills. It’s also rumored to help
children learn something every once in a
while.
But somehow, this 11-year-old girl,
along with plenty of other kids, just don’t
seem to have time to do their schoolwork
and live a normal, healthy life.
What’s the problem? Well, we’re treat
ing our kids more like adults, for one thing.
Even Time points this out. Between ses
sions of homework, boys and girls are off
learning how to be world-champion swim
mers, or world-class pianists, or participat
ing in one of what seems like a million
activities.
It is a little bit of a problem. Is it a major
one? Not necessarily. It’s a good thing for
children to be involved. But some parents
take it beyond the level of normal involve
ment, and turn that into hyper-involvement.
Their children must be in everything, all of
the time. That eats into homework time and
just plain living time.
Not only that, but many children, espe
cially in middle- and upper-class schools,
are expected to get perfect grades. Not just
good. Perfect. And, if a child knows that,
they’ll spend hours and hours trying to get it
right. The pressure put on them by parents
and teachers is too much, too fast.
But overall, homework can be a good
thing, because it gives children the rare
opportunity to work on something by them
selves and figure out answers by them
selves. It’s a learning process, through and
through. But it’s important not to drive chil
dren into the ground with demands of per
fection.
In the end, Time magazine is wrong by
saying there’s too much homework. It’s that
we, as a society, are simply putting way too
much pressure on children by forcing them
to be perfect. Many of us were fortunate
enough to not have that. Some of us suffered
through it. Children need a break, but it
shouldn’t come at the expense of learning. It
should come at the expense of parents’ and
teachers’ egos.
Editorial Pulley
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the Spring 1999 Daily Nebraskan. They
do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its
employees, its student body or the
University of Nebraska Board of Regents.
A column is solely the opinion of its author.
The Board of Regents serves as publisher
of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set ty
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Tne
UNL Publications Board, established by
the regents, supervises the production
of the paper. According to policy set by
tiie regents, responsibility for the editorial
content of tiie newspaper ties solely in
tiw funds of its studdnt employees.
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief
letters to the editor and guest columns,
but does not guarantee their publication.
The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to
edit or reject any material submitted.
Submitted material becomes property of
the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned. Anonymous submissions will
not be published. Those who submit
letters must identify themselves by name,
year in school, major and/or group
affiliation, if any.
Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln,
NE. 68588-0448. E-mail:
ieRersoununto.uni.edu.
Lupo’s
VIEW
———7 - \ ;
*** /' <>o, MIA HCC*=>NlALP |
/PL-CA^e. TEU- THE I
t COUP-T WHAT THE \
S>\ ppe^demt ott>mepj
THE PAY |H in
?||m (2UESTIOH... / ©_
Tyh ^r—~ ~ 1 .cr
P £
K/HI&X * cr"1"j£v„ —•■■ ~
1 ,j •?. • *•" ■ --■. '»r -...
THE. 5EMXTC P&CJPe<> TO ONI-V CALL "i<£V
W»TNg^>&<> TO TH&. P&&CtP>&/^J'r<> CJ4A*LAC.TBfC”
DN
LETTERS
Striking a balance
I see Ms. Flanagain is again
attacking women and this time she
decided to pick on the lesbians.
What’s her “political agenda”?
Do we accuse English classes out
side of the realm of women’s literature
as “overly promoting” a heterosexual
curriculum? How about television?
Do we want to accuse networks of
forcing heterosexual viewpoints on its
viewers?
If I take your viewpoint that the
Women’s Studies program is a “cam
paign outlet for the political advance
ment of the lesbian agenda” then
maybe the entire rest of the university
(those departments outside of
Women’s Studies) could be accused
of being a campaign outiet to perpetu
ate the political status quo.
Lesbian literature needs to have its
forum somewhere, and you certainly
won’t find much of it in the reading
lists for most English classes. A few
Women’s Studies classes at the
University level can, in no way, bal
ance out the years of strictly hetero
sexual reading lists that adorn a tradi
tionally “American” education.
Susan Kiene
junior
exercise science
Honor thy students
In response to the article
“Neihardt to become honors-only,” I
would like to say that, as an honors
student living in Neihardt, I am
offended by this “new” policy. This is
not to say that the reduction in non
honors students is something “new,”
as I was notified in a meeting with
Ana Campos, Neihardt’s residence
director (This reconstituting of the
population has occurred several times
in the past). I refer to this as “new”
due to the fact that most non-honors
students living in Neihardt found the
news shocking and are appalled by the
thought that these rooms that have
become their home in a time as short
as one or two years are going to be
taken away.
In my meeting, it was brought to
my attention that the current problem
arose from a shortage of rooms for
incoming honors students. Rooms in
Neihardt had been promised to honors
students, who were then assigned to
other halls on campus. Responding to
this shortsightedness, it was decided
that the best option was to speed up
the slow removal of non-honors stu
dents from the dorm.
The title “honors student” itself
has proves to be of little value in the
Rmg run as far as 1 caa tefl; many non
honors friends that I have met here are
just as intelligent, if not better stu
dents, than many honors students!
What I am getting at here is that pur
posely disallowing these students to
return to Neihardt in 2000 will not
alter the environment here in any way;
therefore, the only possible effects of
this transition are negative!
In conclusion, it would seem that
this is not the best way of changing the
balance of honors students here.
Elsewhere on campus it is the case
that upperclassmen are allowed the
opportunity to return to their old
rooms as long as they so desire; this is
the policy to uphold, in my mind.
Rather than denying these students
that privilege, it would perhaps be bet
ter not to make promises that cannot
be fulfilled. Over time, if the idea that
honors and non-honors students
should not mix remains the prejudice
of University Housing, they should be
more selective in who is allowed into
the “honors dorm” in the first place.
Robert Glaubius
honors Neihardt resident
sophomore
computer science
Dishonorably charged
Much discussion has been pro
duced in the Daily Nebraskan as a
result of the announcement of a new
honors dorm and the closing of
Neihardt to non-honors students. Our
general response to this controversy is
one of disgust and anger. At a univer
sity that, through much advertisement
and promotion, is continually trying
to pull in a diverse and educated stu
dent body, and encourages their
recru
0
cam
pus
1 n
the
dorms, a decision to exclude individu
als from such a “privilege” (choosing
where one would like to live) is hypo
critical.
Kicking non-honors students out
of Neihardt only proves who the uni
versity’s loyalty belongs to - the hon
ors students. Has alienation of stu
dents become a priority for the honors
board?
As a precautionary measure, we
have packed all of our roommates’
belongings because our roommates
aren’t in the honors program. Unlike
Angie Buescher, who has the fore
sight to see these changes coming, we
don’t want to be caught off guard
when the honors board decides to turn
our floors into honors housing. We
understand that it’s a priority for some
honors students to have a high per
centage of honors students around
them in their housing.
This fact does not allow the uni
versity to take a fascist stance and
make “regular” students suffer for the
“benefit” of the honors students. Who
actually pays for their books anyway -
“regular” students! Don’t count on us
to be the first to move into Neihardt
after the other students are “conve
niently” relocated!
Kevin Francis
freshman
actuarial science
KylieWolf
freshman
undeclared
MattHaney/DN