The Battalion
rom the exper.
that people at :
iaid. “I hope tk
hope and insp:
?ople.”
mger Joe Tori!
[MONDAY
July 8, 1996
for now, will 1-
; right-hander:
■ Torre’s prede
owalter, didn':
a chance toplaj
‘ar, giving hir
the season’s £■
it the first da;
said Torre, tk
hen Strawber
in 1980. “Ht
t of a thrill for
don
treaker
on
ourt
England (AP
le streaker,
le and little
-css Centre
ore Sunday’s
nal.
mtified only
tudent from
-er a barrier
urt and then
if its periph
Day planners can’t plan lifelong happiness
■ont of final
:k and Mali'
they posed
;ographs.
-as topless
iny maid's
’ted up. She
ted off the
yal Box by
iroke into
ost of f he
sed a mo-
ed over try-
laughter,
baseline to
e American
lirt to bare
received a
taken to
tion where
d until the
roper, The
unexpect-
•egarding
R eality doesn’t bite,
but if it did, I would
be first in line for
stitches.
My latest experience
with reality has come
with the realization that
my daily planner hasn’t
put me on my path to
achievements and suc
cesses like its brochure
said it would.
Rather, after over eight
semesters of owning the
little green thing, the only real accomplish
ments charted in it are my tendencies to be
overambitious and to bite off more than I
can chew.
Take, for example, this summer.
According to my “things to do” list, by now
I was supposed to have paid off half of my
credit card debt', made a 4.0 in the first sum
mer session and woken up at 6 a.m. to work
out every morning before my 8 o’clock class.
But of course, it hasn’t turned out that
way. My alarm clock has only turned out to
be a reminder that I have an amazing abil
ity to tune out the buzzer until it’s too late
Columnist
to get to class. And that 4.0? Well, let’s just
say it will continue to be a dream of mine.
When I first bought the planner, the idea
was that I would chart out goals in life,
break them down into daily tasks (like the
owner’s manual instructed), and I would be
on my merry little way to efficient living.
If my life followed the schedule in my plan
ner, I would have become a very accomplished
individual, most likely the youngest Nobel
Prize winner ever.
However, I would have also missed out on
all the late-night talks with friends, the
phone calls home to Mom and Dad just to
hear their voices and the enlightening con
versations with strangers who happened to
cross paths with me.
It’s easy to get caught up in the time-
management craze.
To see how important those organizers
have become, find a friend who carries his
planner with him all the time, and then hide
it. What follows is an ugly scene — including
possible twitches and nervous breakdowns
— but it highlights the dependence we have
on schedules and deadlines.
With all the time-management systems
out there supposedly creating hours of free
time, you would think that people would be
a little more relaxed by now. Instead, you
find more articles on how to relax, make
time for yourself and have it all, without
making any sacrifices.
There’s nothing wrong with a little disci
pline and goal-setting, but maybe we can
find some space to put one more reminder on
our “things to do” list: We’re only human.
And as far as prioritizing goes, people
should take a position of higher importance
than a checklist. It’s disturbing to come
across articles in current magazines that
give tips on how to eliminate those unan
ticipated interruptions in your life. Often,
surprise visits or phone calls offer a new
outlook on an experience.
It’s the unplanned things in life that of
ten teach us what we need to learn. Follow
ing a checklist may end up leaving us not
with a reminder of things to do. Rather, it
may remind us of opportunities we could
have taken advantage of had we only been
looking.
Jenni Howard is a
Class of’96 economics and
international studies major
t wish to
, it did at
ht amuse-
d patient
had a try-
ecent bad
lent said.
M
; five
ifortably
:ernoon.
6-1) lost
s he was
ors May
inings in
! season,
st prob-
nd bare-
J7) than
for
L
n
3 r Mac
ns and
: in Ms
5 r the
i be-
> first
i-Toorn
3! ay l n
»rican
ad the
major
;ory-
o nz a ‘
22nd
l Ivan
-vvent
i th a
dou-
^ the
ssange
«mn a
Joey
Oberhelman
Continued from Page 1
While this department has been overly re
sponsive to the needs of graduating seniors,
the basic problem is the demand has far out
stripped the supply. We are offering more
seats in Spanish at the first-year level (101,
102,140) than ever before, yet the demand is
°ppressive. The internationalization of acad-
emic curricula and cultural and environmen
tal factors (e.g., NAFTA), have increased the
demand for Spanish classes, even by stu
dents who have already fulfilled their core-
! Urriculum language requirement. This is
the president of the University of Texas,
Austin, infused hundreds of thousands of
Pew dollars into his Spanish department
rist three years ago (the same year my bud-
8et was cut).
The department has acted proactively to
Wn the demand for language classes,
me department has instituted a policy re
quiring any incoming freshman with prior
knowledge of any foreign language —
whether through academic work or by cul
tural experience — who wishes to pursue
that language at Texas A&M to take a
placement test. This will place him or her
in the proper sequence of beginning and in
termediate courses. Since 1993, the place
ment test has saved 3,134 seats for stu
dents — translating into a saving of
$313,400 for Texas A&M.
The department has taken other steps. It
has established a new course, SPAN 140
(“Alternative Beginning Spanish”), for use in
conjunction with the department’s place
ment examination. The requirements for ad
mission into Texas A&M have been changed,
so that students must satisfy their core cur
riculum language requirement before they
arrive. The language requirement for Liber
al Arts B.A. majors has also been changed —
from 14 credit hours (101-202) to six hours
at the intermediate level (201-202): High-en
rollment, video-based first-year Spanish
course have been developed to serve non-
B.A. students. The department is in the
process of re-evaluating the credit which
Texas A&M University awards on the Ad
vanced Placement Examination. Also, the
department has volunteered to undergo a
Continuous Improvement review of its deliv
ery of first-year Spanish.
As should be obvious, this department has
tried to fulfill its mission to the students. We
have acted, given the monetary resources
available, in the most responsible manner
possible. The only remedy is an infusion of
funds for teaching Spanish. The administra
tion has helped whenever it could, but the
simple fact is the state legislature must allo
cate additional funds for educational purpos
es (current funding is 42nd out of 50 states),
and the students must realize their share of
the costs of their education (currently, 20
percent) should be increased on the national
level (25 percent).
Steve Oberhelman is the head of
the Department of Modern
and Classical Languages
Page 5
Court rulings don’t
justify death penalty
L ast
week,
the
Supreme
Court raised
the dead.
Specifically,
it resurrected
the old de
bate on the
death penal
ty with a new
twist.
The court’s
ruling on the
appeal of Georgia murderer El
lis Wayne Felker upheld key
sections of the Anti-Terrorism
and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996. The act was re
cently passed by Congress and
signed by FVesident Clinton.
Felker claimed Congress had
usurped the court’s power by re
stricting a prisoner’s ability to
appeal. Felker’s argument was
rejected and Congress’ tough-on-
crime law was upheld. As a re
sult, Texas, Pennsylvania and
Virginia will execute a total of
five convicted murderers within
the next two weeks.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah
Republican, explained the rul
ing as a stand against “inces
sant, frivolous appeals at the
cost of taxpayers paying unnec
essary dollars and the pain of
victims and their families.”
Hatch obviously believes two
wrongs do make a right. We’ll
show those mean old nasty
murderers what it feels like to
die. That will make the fami
lies of victims feel better.
The senator does have a
point about the money, though.
The appeals of death row in
mates are costing taxpayers
money — but what a small
price to pay for a person’s life.
A murder is a horrible, dis
gusting crime, but it shouldn’t
be punished by denying the
sanctity of life a second time.
Besides, the death penalty
promotes a sadly idealistic
view of the U.S. justice sys
tem. Not all convicted crimi
nals are guilty.
The president of the Na
tional Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers, Robert
Foglenest, points out, “As a re
sult of this decision some in
nocent people are certain to be
put to death.”
The court’s decision severely
restricts a criminal from ap
pealing for more than one writ
of habeas corpus. Thus, some
cases may never have a second
chance to reach justice.
But what are a few dead in
nocents when we can cut the
$4.6 billion Texas spent on its
prison system in 1995? Fewer
death row inmates means lower
taxes. We could save thousands
just by denying those excessive
appeals and millions if we actu
ally kill the prisoners before
they run up a high price tag.
On June 28, the New Jersey
Supreme Court made a shock
ing statement on the issue. The
court actually denied the con
victed murderer John M. Mar
tini’s request for execution in
an attempt to protect the “relia
bility ... and integrity of death
sentences in New Jersey.”
Martini has been convicted
of killing three men and is cur
rently awaiting trial in
Philadelphia on another mur
der charge. The court felt the
prisoner’s execution would
have been based solely on his
wish to die.
By foregoing the final level
of his appeals, he was sentenc
ing himself. No more juries, no
more judges, just one man’s
passive acceptance. A closer
look at Martini’s competency
reveals the logic of the court’s
decision. When asked why he
had refused a final appeal.
Martini said he wanted to die
because prison food was bad,
his cell was noisy and he didn’t
like the routine strip searches.
A man’s execution shouldn’t
be based on such lunacy.
State-funded suicide is not a
demonstration of “reliability
and integrity.”
Martini has been convicted
of murder. He is probably
guilty. If he were released into
the public, he might kill anoth
er person. But if Martini is exe
cuted, there is still a dead body
to be accounted for, and this
time no one will be put on trial
for the murder.
Life is precious. When some
one’s life is taken by another
person, it is murder — whether
the murderer is holding a gun
in a fit of passion or performing
a lethal injection with the back
ing of a jury’s sentence.
Our justice system thinks
John M. Martini and Ellis
Wayne Felker deserve to die.
Let he who is without sin ad
minister the first execution.
Marcus Goodyear is a
Class of ’9 7 English major
MARCUS
GOODYEAR
Columnist
Two sexes may learn
by different methods
I found Jenni Howard and
Jim Pawlikowski’s July 1 dis
cussion of the advantages and
disadvantages of same-sex edu
cation interesting and would
like to add some of my own
ideas to what they had to say.
Proponents of same-sex educa
tion claim that hormonal changes
in the adolescent body are a ma
jor contributor to the disparity
between the performance of boys
and girls in the sciences and in
the arts. They can well demon
strate coeducation as a catalyst
for disparity, but, even so, they
fail to recognize the reasons why
boys do better in the sciences
(rather that the arts) and vice
versa for girls.
Our media have popularized
the theory that societal stereo
types are the sole cause of acade
mic disparity between the gen
ders — that, for instance, because
girls have few role models in the
sciences and engineering, they
feel incompetent. I will certainly
not eliminate this as a possible
factor. I would like to point out,
though, that boys have many
more role models in the arts than
girls do, yet still are outper
formed by girls in that area.
Clearly stereotypes are not the
sole cause of the problem.
I believe that the gender dis
parity may be a result of differ
ing learning methods generally
employed by the two sexes. Ac
cording to psychologists, there
are basically two types of learn
ers, global learners and proce
dural learners. Global learners,
put simply, look for the big pic
ture. Procedural learners are
more interested in details. It
just so happens that girls tend
to be global learners, and boys
tend to be procedural learners.
This may explain why girls tend
to display more aptitude in the
arts, which is global in nature,
and boys in science, which is
more detailed.
Of course, if this is indeed the
cause of the problem, it is easily
rectifiable by adopting a dual in
structional approach. It is impor
tant, however, to do this in a co
educational environment be
cause not all girls are global and
not all boys are procedural (I
tend to be more of a global learn
er, myself). It is interesting to
note, however, that the success
of single-sex educational envi
ronments may be a result of in
structors being forced to fit the
subject material into a particu
lar learning paradigm. If, howev
er, instructors recognize there
are two learning paradigms be
fore they begin instructing stu
dents, and that they must con
form to both for the entire class
to be successful, they will likely
be able to eliminate the discrep
ancy between the two genders’
performance without resorting to
gender separation.
Michael Nichols
Class of’97