message
history
theme

1-4victor-acknowledges-all:

inunchartedwaters:

amplifytheworld:

referencesforartists:

brenanf999:

dontwantyourmoneysir:

anndruyan:

This is a summary of college only using two pictures; expensive as hell.

That’s my Sociology “book”. In fact what it is is a piece of paper with codes written on it to allow me to access an electronic version of a book. I was told by my professor that I could not buy any other paperback version, or use another code, so I was left with no option other than buying a piece of paper for over $200. Best part about all this is my professor wrote the books; there’s something hilariously sadistic about that. So I pretty much doled out $200 for a current edition of an online textbook that is no different than an older, paperback edition of the same book for $5; yeah, I checked. My mistake for listening to my professor.

This is why we download. 

Spreading this shit like nutella because goddamn textbooks are so expensive. 

not necessarily art related but as someone who couldn’t afford their textbooks this semester this is a godsend

REBLOGGING because after a little digging, I found my $200 textbook for free in PDF form.

friendly reminder that this exists since I know we’re all going back to college soon

Will reblog every time I see it.

kaytara-art:

It always amuses me when people bring up the fact that girls and women now excel more in schools and universities than boys and men as some bullshit example of misandry.

Let’s see…

You have one group of people who are told from infancy that the world will be handed to them on a silver platter, that they will excel in the job, kill the dragon, save the world and get the girl, and are owed all that and nothing less than that…

And then you have another group of people who learn early on that they have to be twice as impressive to receive half as much respect, that they can never afford to be anything other than their best or they’ll be proving the stereotypes about their group right, that they don’t have room for mistakes, that the only way they’ll have respect, power and independence in this world is if they go out and carpe diem that shit.

Gee, I wonder which group would have the better work ethic.

trungles:

shorterexcerpts:

styro:

salon:

Ronald Reagan pretty much ruined everything for millennials.

fuckin’ ronnie

I try and bring up how he ruined free in state tuition in the name of hippie bashing when he was California’s governor often, but don’t exactly have the biggest platform.

"Worst of all, these students’ sense of the future is constrained by planning for and then paying down their student loans, often for decades. Economists are waking up to the fact that when young Americans enter the workforce burdened with over a trillion dollars in cumulative debt, they become risk averse, unwilling to move, less able to make major purchases, and slower to become homeowners. Not coincidentally, they don’t feel safe enough to register any major protests against the society that’s done this to them.”

Damn.

yestermorning:

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

•••

Wait, wait, wait, I have an amazing new idea. How about we fix the American school system.

princess-neville:

girls being kept out of the sciences and pushed into the humanities; the humanities being valued less in our society than the sciences; and the humanities and sciences being looked at as stark opposites that couldn’t possibly be enjoyed for the same reasons are all problems that need to in some degree be tackled together 

zethie:

rougeoctobre:

i don’t care if it’s a only a joke, please don’t make comments about how someone’s choice of field of study isn’t going to take them anywhere because it can be a great source of stress and your joke won’t help.

also, destroy the idea that we should only pursue dreams if they are likely to give you status in this capitalist piece-of-shit society.

americans: can we have lower interest rates on student loans? maybe fix how health care is handled? gun control? equal marriage rights?
congress:
congress:
congress:
congress: I came out tonight to have a fun time and I honestly am feeling so attacked right now

crookednose:

minimum wage doesn’t even TOUCH a living wage, racism and sexism are alive and well, children are killed in schools on a regular basis, those who make it to college end up with hundreds of thousands in debt, our basic rights are being stripped from us daily, and adults actually believe that SELFIES are the cause for this generation’s demise

nephalemsoul:

If I ever become an English teacher and there is a unit about Dante’s Inferno, I will always start out the unit like:

"WELCOME TO HELL!

I’ll be your guide.”

And act as if Hell is a fucking safari.

jhenne-bean:

mariavontraphouse:

Remember when Starbucks offered to pay tuition? Never mind

dad-rock-davos:

trillgamesh:

nissan420sx:

jakke:

Initially, Starbucks said that workers would be able to offset the costs through an upfront scholarship it was providing with Arizona State, but declined to say exactly how much of the cost it was shouldering. The chain estimated the scholarship would average about $6,500 over two years to cover tuition of about $20,000.

Following the announcement, however, Arizona State University President Michael Crow told The Chronicle of Higher Education that Starbucks is not contributing any money toward the scholarship. Instead, Arizona State will essentially charge workers less than the sticker price for online tuition. Much of the remainder would likely be covered by federal aid since most Starbucks workers don’t earn a lot of money.

Workers would pay whatever costs remained out of pocket for the first two years, and Starbucks would bear no costs.

Wow so kudos to Starbucks here! A ton of free positive publicity and absolutely no contribution towards the employees’ tuition. This was basically a scheme to rebrand federal post-secondary aid as generosity from the kindly employer and wow was it effective.

Lol

Holy fuck

Oh my god

image

(that’s awful tho)

"Even after she’d called their bluff, the college still required Chandler to resubmit her doctor’s note every semester. Meanwhile, she says, “the school buildings were an accessibility nightmare. Apparently no one looked up ADA guidelines before cramming the hallways and classrooms full of tables and desks. The classrooms in particular were stuffed with desks to the point that it was difficult for even a small, skinny, non-disabled person to get around. I emailed the disability services office about it and was roundly ignored. The hallways finally got fixed after I emailed the VP of student affairs.”"

-

Why Are Huge Numbers of Disabled Students Dropping Out of College? US colleges and universities need to do better at meeting the needs of disabled students.

this is very common. and as the article says, that’s not even what forced her to leave college in the end — that was the ableism of her English teacher.

(via disabilityhistory)

other country: wow we solved drug crimes by doing this and the problem is practically completely resolved
america: there is just no stopping the war on drugs........
other country: we have the most successful schools because we implement these rules to encourage real learning
america: no hope....... kids just cant cut it anymore........
other country: gun related crime is all but non existent thanks to our restrictions
america: wow..... if only there was some way to stop these shootings before they happened..............
other country: nothing bad has happened as a result of our equal marriage/bathroom laws for lgbt
america: if only there was a way.............................

The Light in Her Eyes (2011)

Survivors, Veterans, and Trigger Warnings in Education

medievalpoc:

itinerantpoet:

medievalpoc:

khoroshocrossing:

medievalpoc:

uncorrectedpersonalitytraits submitted to medievalpoc:

Apologies if you have addressed this in your blog. I did a search and didn’t find evidence of this issue being discussed, so here goes: What do you think of trigger warnings being attached to university and college courses?

I understand the need for sensitivity regarding certain issues, but I also feel that it is a big blow to instructor autonomy and subverts the whole idea of learning. It removes certain major topics of discussion from classrooms like race and sexuality for instance. I am an instructor at a community college in a small Texas town and I already have problems being challenged by some of my more conservative students regarding images of nudity or imagery from non-Christian religions.

I feel these trigger warnings could be used as an excuse to avoid any kind of hot button topic and remove any challenging material from college courses. I guess I’m asking you because I am fascinated by your blog and think highly of your opinion. If you choose to answer this question I thank you for your time in advance. Hell, thanks for your time not in advance for simply reading this.

I assume you’re asking this in good faith, but I am seriously concerned by your idea of what “trigger warning” means, which does not describe what a trigger warning actually is at all. Neither does this article that you probably just read. For the most part, I’m going to address the ideas expressed in the article I just linked to, because they are extremely misleading, and honestly harmful.

Trigger warnings add information, they do not remove it.

What you are describing is…definitely not a trigger warning.

To give you an idea of what you have just said to me, the same idea re-worded is:

“They need to stop rating films ‘R’ because that means no one can see them.”

Another way: “We can’t put ingredients on labels or no one will ever buy food.”

The word “trigger” in the phrase “trigger warning” is specifically meant to describe PTSD triggers. All a trigger warning does is describe content that will follow it. A lot of shows have little blurbs that say something like, “this segment contains graphic content, viewer discretion is advised”. Your TV doesn’t shut off automatically! All it does is give you a chance to turn it off if you choose to.

The idea that the word warning is a synonym for prohibited is ridiculous, but it seems like that’s becoming a more and more pervasive idea. The article I linked to above also seems to be confusing something that’s under the purview of disability services with general classroom curricula for everyone.

Someone with PTSD should be allowed an alternate assignment when and if a certain assignment deals with content that is triggering. Because everyone is different, these triggers can be simple or rather complex. That’s an accommodation for a disability. It doesn’t mean “this book and all topics related to it are banned forever from the classroom”. But then again, making something totally reasonable sound completely unreasonable sells articles to online rags.

What boggles my mind is the idea that a trigger warning means that entire curricula are banned, somehow. How does a warning for racial violence, sexual assault, or a hate crime described in detail amount to “banning the topic of race” in a classroom? Gee, I wonder who is most likely to experience racism-related PTSD? I also wonder if  there isn’t a strong undercurrent of “since when do “WE” have to consider the feelings or experiences of people of color, women, and/or disabled people in a classroom? OutRAaaagous!” to all of this, to be perfectly honest.

 I’ve seen this before, and the whole argument reeks of entitlement. It’s just another version of “This doesn’t affect me so I don’t know why we’re paying attention to it; not only that, but I’m angry that we are.”

As the article above mentions, people think that the idea of a content warning was “invented” by social media, but that’s absurd. The backlash is coming from the fact that because of social media, a lot of people who are NOT affected by issues like PTSD are learning about these concepts for the first time, and not surprisingly, are completely misunderstanding pretty much everything. Sometimes on purpose, because they honestly do not give a crap, and are inexplicably enraged that anyone else is allowed to give a crap.

More than a million military veterans are taking postsecondary courses in the United States, and that number is growing. They already struggle with myriad challenges in these endeavors, and many more will stop taking classes than will earn degrees:

Many veterans face an array of challenges in making the transition to college life.

Some are medical. Fisher, who heard the screams of a soldier burning to death and had a buddy die in his arms, participates in group therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. He also has some hearing loss.

"It’s hard for me to be around so many people," he said. "I don’t like it. It makes me feel very uncomfortable."

Should we be subjecting our returning soldiers to graphic images and sounds in war films or detailed descriptions in texts? Is this how we treat our disabled veterans? As is mentioned above, many have come home with multiple disabilities. Is allowing them the choice of what classes to take somehow asking too much of us, now?

"Being challenged" by bigoted students who don’t want to learn about religions other than their own has literally nothing whatsoever to do with trigger warnings. I’d be a lot more worried in Texas about these people’s parents actually making laws that prevent you from teaching about religions other than Christianity. That’s censorship and politics influencing education. Pretending that “you have to learn about all religions  because that’s the topic in class today” is the same as “bombarding an assault survivor or veteran with graphic, violent content with absolutely NO warning or chance to control what they are being exposed to” is pretty disgusting.

The whole article reads like backlash to feminism in the 1960’s. It’s outdated, entitled, and massively misrepresents what is actually going on: students are demanding to have a more active role in choosing classes based on their individual needs. It’s no different than wanting to know what something IS before you buy it-and considering the tuition hikes in recent years, it’s the least they can do.

I wrote the original Rutgers oped column that helped kick off this discussion

medievalpoc you explained this beautifully, and if I could go back and rewrite my article, I would stress what you just wrote. PEOPLE DON’T GET IT, it’s been 3 months and I’ve been interviewed with the BBC and Huff Post about why I want to bring this into the classroom, and people just. don’t. get. it.

They think it’s censorship. They think we’re “too sensitive.” They think it’s “good” to be shocked. It’s always the same thing - the erasure of students with PTSD (especially vets and sexual assault victims), silencing students with PTSD, and thrusting the conversation into something that never discusses PTSD. It’s ONLY being discussed by ableminded individuals, and it’s ONLY being criticized in relation to ableminded individuals.

I’m so sick of this conversation. I’m glad I haven’t gotten any more interviews. Nobody fucking understands this concept; it’s not our fault, it’s because they don’t want to open their eyes and realize that students in the classroom are suffering and people exist in the world with PTSD.

It’s sadly the same old song and dance: reframing this as if allowing for the existence of one group of people can only possibly come at the expense of “everyone else”.

The idea that ADDING information is somehow “censorship” is so absurd I can’t even fathom it. The tone of these articles, which is more or less “catering the to extreme minority at the expense of the majority” is also blatant, over-the-top misinformation.

We are talking about millions of people, and the following numbers only refer to those who’ve recieved diagnosis and treatment:

An estimated 7.8 percent of Americans will experience PTSD at some point in their lives, with women (10.4%) twice as likely as men (5%) to develop PTSD. About 3.6 percent of U.S. adults aged 18 to 54 (5.2 million people) have PTSD during the course of a given year. This represents a small portion of those who have experienced at least one traumatic event; 60.7% of men and 51.2% of women reported at least one traumatic event.

You can just look at these google results and see knee-jerk, reactionary hyperbole about “political correctness” which has become the go-to dog whistle for anyone who wants to write an article about how angry they are they can’t just be openly bigoted anymore without someone SAYING something:

image

According to Momoko Price and Lawrence Berg, this is really just a smear tactic meant to obscure the issue:

“What [they]’re calling the ‘PC movement’ I would call a social movement by marginalised people and the people who support them,” he said. “[A moveme nt] to use language that ’s more correct—not ‘politically correct’—that more accurately represents reality.”

For us, the term ‘politically correct’ survived the 90s, but the term ‘human rights backlash’ did not. Will Hutton, former editor-in-chief for the UK publication the Observer , described in his column how the term ‘PC’ was never really a political stance at all, contrary to popular belief. It was actually perceived by many as a right-wing tactic to dismiss—or backlash against—left-leaning social change. Mock the trivial aspects of human rights politics, like its changing language, and you’ll succeed in obscuring the issue altogether.

And that’s the problem with false dichotomies. Trying to incite backlash against this by claiming something is being “taken away” is one of the oldest tricks in the book. The whole thing is a straw man, because no one is censoring ANYTHING. The implication that this is meant to be some kind of dodge for students who “don’t feel like” learning is an outrage.

The Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies department I graduated from 10 years ago just posted this link to their Facebook with the comment: 

Trigger warnings are not good educational/institutional practice, they don’t protect people, and they are a pretend-substitute for robust mental health services on campus and a comprehensive policy to deal with sexual violence on campus: read and discuss.

I am so enraged right now I can’t even articulate it.  And the worst part is, I can’t tell if they’re posting this statement/article as a way to encourage discussion of the topic, or as their own viewpoint!  

Just…wow. From the Women’s and Gender Studies Department: “trigger warnings don’t protect people”. I just…..okay. *facepalm*