Browsing: Lariat Letters

I fully agree with Coach Kim Mulkey’s assessment of the Louisville “assault” game on March 31. I said they literally “clawed” their way to the championship game, where they got what they deserved: a 33-point loss.

A common problem I’m seeing on campus is overworked, overstressed, sleep-deprived students who are too busy with schoolwork to fully enjoy their college experience. I have had multiple friends say “I live for the weekends,” but this isn’t how it should be.

I’m writing in response to an April 3 article titled “Central Texas plagued by rabies.” As a citizen of Waco and a person that works with the feral cat community in our area, I would like to offer a few words in response to the article about recent rabies cases in McLennan County.

In response to the April 4 editorial “Comprehensive finals get an F for effectiveness,” I would encourage the author of the editorial to dig deeper and consider research about the effectiveness of comprehensive exams. For instance, findings of two recent studies by Natalie Lawrence (2013) and Szpunar, McDermott, and Roediger (2007) indicate that simply preparing for cumulative finals results in improved retention of material, especially if students have already been tested on that material in a midterm examination earlier in the semester. Indeed, this “retesting” method discourages cramming for a one-time “brain dump” because the student knows that he or she will see the material again on a cumulative exam. Moreover, the repetition improves long-term retention.

I am writing to comment on “Comprehensive finals get an F for effectiveness,” published April 4, based on my 19 years of experience as a student and 43 years of experience as a professor of mechanical engineering. When I was a student, my most challenging study was done for comprehensive final exams, which most in engineering are. I am certain that my most significant learning took place putting the whole course together, and this capstone learning experience was when the concepts were finally tattooed onto my brain.

I read with interest your editorial “Comprehensive finals get an F for effectiveness,” on April 4. I have no doubt you are right when you say students complain about them, and that many students consider college simply as a means to employment. You are also correct that some students do poorly on final exams because “students never learned the material in the first place.” You are exactly and completely wrong, however, in your conclusion that final exams contribute to this “instrumentalism.”

If I correctly understood the intended message of the Lariat’s editorial — “Waging War Against Piracy is Useless” on March 8 — I must vehemently disagree. Piracy may be a bad and regrettable “fact of life” but so are many social ills.

Two columns have been featured in the Lariat regarding Campus Living and Learning’s requirements for community leaders.

One of them advocated for CL requirements to no longer hinge on the need for a candidate to be a Christian since students of all faiths are in need of the financial assistance the CL scholarship offers.

Thanks for your timely and balanced coverage of current gun law debates. I’m writing in response to your survey results on Sen. Birdwell’s proposed concealed carry bill that would allow licensed carriers to bring firearms onto college campuses. It is often the case with “opt-in” surveys that those who respond are often those who have the strongest feelings, one way or another.

Thank you for your viewpoint on concealed weapons for our campus that was expressed in Friday’s Lariat, in the article “Professor’s perspective”

My objection to your comments concerns your statement “The issue boils down to the probabilities”. To use your words, you are also engaging “in emotionalism” since the facts – or probabilities as you refer to – really do not back you up. A joint U.S. Department of Education/Secret Service report estimates the odds that someone dies in a school shooting is 1 in 1 million.

I am writing in response to a few issues raised in The Lariat’s excellent coverage of the controversy over the petition my colleague Dr. Blake Burleson and I wrote opposing Sen. Brian Birdwell’s Campus Personal Protection Act.

It is stated in the article “Students’ take” from the February 26 issue of the Lariat, that “Baylor professors expressed concern for their safety in a classroom that permitted concealed carry.” My personal safety is not the issue. As a professor and the father of two Baylor students, I am concerned first and foremost for the safety of my students.

The Baylor Lariat printed an article titled “Professors unite against concealed carry” on Feb. 21, detailing the Baylor professors that have signed and filed a letter in opposition to Sen. Bill 182.

The bill was filed by Texas Sen. Brian Birdwell on Jan. 17 and would allow concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed weapons on college campuses.

Fortunately, we live in a country that affords us the rights to have debate and to elect leaders to create laws for us as a nation. The 2nd amendment right is a contentious issue for many and continues to be divisive at a national level. Concealed Carry on college campuses has gained traction in many states. In Texas we currently see Bill 182 that will allow licensed concealed carry permit holders to carry their personal weapons on college campuses.

Local media outlets, including the Baylor Lariat, have reported that Baylor faculty members Dr. Blake Burleson and Dr. Robin Wallace recently drafted a letter condemning Texas Senate Bill 182 and circulated it among the faculty. The letter strongly asserts that the freedom of licensed citizens to carry concealed weapons is disruptive to a learning environment. The authors and signatures of the letter contend that the possible presence of a firearm on campus would “introduce an element into this environment that causes anxiety, tension, concern, and fear” and “impede the free flow of ideas and exchanges which are essential in the academic enterprise.”

In response to the article in The Baylor Lariat, “Professors unite against concealed carry,” I would like to voice my concerns as a faceless Baylor student.

First off, everyone should have a say in policies that would, in fact, affect their personal/professional lives, yet to make technical claims that are outside the scope of one’s expertise, claims that these professors make, should be first thoroughly researched before attempting to sway public policy. Dr. Burleson, a religion senior lecturer, and Dr. Wallace, a professor of musicology, while wise and learned are certainly not the first individuals whom I would take credible statements from regarding a topic primarily associated with criminological and sociological studies. Having said that, I found some errors supporting this claim.

I’m writing in response to the Lariat editorial “New definition of rape will lead to justice for unrecognized” which ran on January 24.

Specifically, I’m responding to two paragraphs in the editorial that address the Duluth Model, a philosophy for responding to domestic violence that was created at the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, where I work, in Duluth, Minn.

In a Nov. 27 article titled “Alum dispels popular myth,” the Lariat talked to Jim Hillin, who has worked on a number of films including Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” The article dispelled the myth that the ballroom in that movie was based primarily on the Armstrong-Browning Library. This is a response by Jim Hillin to some of the sentiments expressed in the article. Read the article at www.baylorlariat.edu for more information.

A false dilemma is when one is given a set of options and incorrectly told that those are all the options.

Example: You ‘must’ choose A or B, even though there is also C.

Regarding the Nov. 14 letter “Liberal culture of hate to blame for political division” sent by William C. VanRonzelen IV:

William, I read your letter, and I noticed it looked remarkably similar to what I have found, and read about for quite some time now.

The main difference is that the parties are switched.

Regarding the Nov 14 letter “Liberal culture of hate to blame for political division.”

I normally don’t go out of my way to respond to Lariat articles like this, but your opinion piece really made me reel back.

Having been a Christian for 22 years of my life before finally letting my faith go, I can’t help but notice how easy my life had been.

I know most of us are trying to put the acerbic politics of the latest election behind us, but I feel like I need to throw one last bucket of gas on the slowly dying fire.

Last Friday the Lariat printed an opinion piece written by Leonard Pitts for the Miami Herald.

I have noticed several stories in the Lariat lately about people with autism.

While I am thrilled that you are raising awareness for this disorder, I think it’s important that you find out how to talk about it in a sensitive way.

The title of one story in today’s issue, for example, began with the phrase “autistic families.” This is not at all the correct way to talk about autism and can be considered offensive.

Families are not autistic…one individual in the family is (or several may be).

In response to the editorial of Nov. 7, “For America’s sake let’s all support President Obama,” it behooves me to explain that when I think of the phrase “I support you,” it is associated with feelings and abstract solidarity that I might offer to friends in time of need.

Dear Baylor student at the homecoming pep rally:

First of all, I applaud you for wearing your Baylor Line jersey and for showing Baylor spirit.

I feel it important that, despite our losing record, the fans still exhibit pride for the university. However, there were two things that I did not approve of and, frankly, found inappropriate for a pep rally.

With the 2012 presidential election around the corner, campaign ads and propaganda published by special interest groups have made national appearances on popular networks like CNN, FOX and even Animal Planet.

One particular ad has stirred up controversy throughout the Web.

Like many of you I am a frequent visitor to the beach.

I fell in love with Texas beaches in 1955. I was 6 years old when I built my first sand castle on Stewart Beach. I built my last one with Tori, my 6 year-old granddaughter, just a few weeks ago. Public beach access is very important to me. I want Tori to be able to enjoy our coast as much as I have. Every visitor to the coast should have that same opportunity.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are stepping up their rhetoric as Election Day grows nearer, and so are their supporters.

As a close follower of current events and politics, I have seen and heard many different viewpoints of President Obama and Governor Romney.

I am writing in response James Herd’s Oct. 24 article, “PETA Video Games Detract From Others’ Fight for Animal Rights.”

The game’s main message is that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse in any other way.

There are a lot of similarities between how Pokémon are used in the game series and how animals are abused in real life. The difference between real life and this fictional world full of organized animal fighting is that Pokémon games paint a rosy picture of things that are actually cruel.

The thing that has personally insulted me the most about the Bear Pit bill is the way that those who are in favor of the bill have phrased what exactly the bill does to the Bear Pit. They have said that the bill will remove all requirements for the courtside seating that the Bear Pit currently occupies, which is correct.

I found numerous problems with the Lariat’s April 20th editorial, “Amazon’s Dirt Cheap E-book Prices Hurt Authors.”

The Lariat’s Rob Bradfield reported on April 20 that 2,093 students (about 14 percent of the student body) voted for the office of student body president. Not many people ran for other positions, so one of the uncontested positions reportedly was won with even fewer than 500 votes. Senate seats will now have to be filled by application.