Smaller Classes: An Improvement for History

As noted in my previous post the academic year is drawing to a close, and an institution is allowed the opportunity to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the year that has passed for its student body and how it can improve undergraduate programming. My home institution of the University of Southern California (pictured at the left), as a member of the Association of American Universities, takes full advantage of the chances that are provided with self-reflection at the end of another academic year. More specifically, the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences has what is known as the Dean’s Prize, an attempt to actualize both the core ideals of USC and its plan for the future.

According to its role and mission, USC holds that its task “is the development of human beings and society as a whole through the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit….through a broad array of academic, professional, extracurricular and athletic programs of the first rank.” The USC 2004 strategic plan provides a more detailed set of values as to how the institution is going to improve the educational experience by stating that it “will focus [their] educational programs on meeting the needs of qualified students worldwide…This commitment will guide our choices regarding pedagogy, instructional technology, curriculum, admissions, and support services.” The Dean’s Prize places some of the decision making as to the learning experience into the hands of the students by asking those who directly coming into contact with the curriculum, as to where they believe the programs are falling short and how improvements can be made, which is one avenue that the college is using in an attempt to enrich the educational process.

This week I had decided to take on the task of looking back on my familiarity with the history department as a junior in my educational career and how it could best be helped. Numerous ideas whirled through my head about grand improvements that could have been made to the department buildings, classes provided, locations of instruction, but I came to the realization that there is actually a very simple change: smaller class sizes. I know that this may appear to be an insignificant and simplistic solution but it is the solution that the degree of history has been searching for.

I am not talking about making classes that already contain fifteen people in them smaller, but those classes are upper division courses typical of any major. One of the most fundamental ways of achieving that goal is by starting out with smaller class sizes at the lower division course level. Instead of having 100 and 200 level course where there are well over 100 people per class (similar to the one pictured at the right), make those classes smaller. The advantages are as follows. First, more personal interaction with working professionals rather than Teachers Assistants, for TAs are sometimes lacking in knowledge of the subject matter, causing frustration and dissatisfaction with the class, quickly shifting to discontent with the major as a whole. Next, professors are able to provide students with a fuller range of employment possibilities from museum curator to archivist or author instead of the typical lawyer or teacher. Many people starting out in the field of history fail to see these various avenues available to them. Finally, with a smaller class size there would be a greater opportunity for professors to make history a more tangible thing rather then merely information in a book. All of these benefits exemplify the strategic plan of the improvement of undergraduate education in accordance with the beliefs of USC’s history department of the ability to “appreciate and evaluate the world beyond” our lives.

I had a personal experience with this more physical technique of teaching through a class that I took in the spring of 2006. The class was the Vietnam War class taught by Dr. Roger Dingman (pictured at left), in which he planned and implemented a field trip to Little Saigon where our class (of only 20 people) was able to come face to face with the religion, food, and history of Vietnam. We were able to see, touch, and taste what we had been learning about in the pages of our books. That experience would not have been possible with a class of 150 people, and I would not have felt the joy and excitement of living history that I did that day. However, this was an upper division class made up of mostly juniors and seniors. These experiences must be made available for freshmen and sophomores so that they may see the enjoyment that comes from being a history major. Though it may look to be trivial change on the surface, the prospects that become available with the change are countless. The financial expenditure of employing more quality professors will be far outweighed by the enrichment of the learning experience of countless students and the robust growth of quality of the history department as a whole on a national and international level.

A Man Who Distinguished Himself in History: Ted Widmer

This week I will be taking an additional departure from my blog entries with the final refinements being placed on Pomp and Circumstance No. 1 (and the all too familiar mortar board pictured at left) for the fast approaching commencement ceremonies and the achievement of scholastic excellence. Among the various degrees bestowed upon college graduation day there is one degree that has often caused much debate: the honorary degree. As president emeritus of the University of Iowa and Dartmouth University, James Freedman, describes what he believes the true attributes of the presentation of the honorary degree ought to be to “celebrate distinguished and sublime achievement” because when a university gives an individual such a degree “a university mak[ing] an explicit statement to its students and the world about the qualities of character and attainment it admires most.” However, he goes on to provide the aspect of the honorary degree that causes debate among many individuals as to the legitimacy of the award. Freedman believes that over the years the North American higher education system has warped the original intention of the honorary degree into something used “to flatter generous donors and prospective benefactors” or “mere celebrities-who are often famous principally for being famous.” By taking Freedman’s perspective on the state of the honorary degree in American higher education one can see how they can be seen as “trivialized” piece of paper.

In spite of Freedman’s doubt as to the validity of the honorary degree I still believe that there are those individuals existing in the world in various fields of specialty who are deserving of a degree. A degree described by The University of Southern California as a designation to “honor individuals who have distinguished themselves through extraordinary achievements in scholarship, the professions, or other creative activities, whether or not they are widely known by the general public” and “recognize exceptional acts of philanthropy to the university and/or on the national or world scene.” Under the guidelines that have been specified by the university there is an exceptional individual in the field of history who is most deserving of an honorary degree from the University of Southern California named Edward L. “Ted” Widmer.

Ted Widmer (pictured at right) is currently the director of John Carter Brown Library at Brown University and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton. However, despite his two prestigious occupations what makes Mr. Widmer most deserving of one of USC’s honorary degrees (for there are seven different fields of honorary degree that USC gives out) is his dedication to the furthering people’s education of American history. He has performed this task through various avenue of involvement. He has taken on the task of educating America’s public on various topics of American history from his book on Martin Van Buren a part of the American President Series to collections of America speeches from the Revolution to Bill Clinton a two part book series aimed at providing primary sources demonstrating the important political, social, and moral ideologies that shaped America into what it is today. Widmer’s books are not simply additions to the already prolific array of non-fiction historical works existing in the world that makes important contributions to the field of history, but his first book, Young America: The Flowering of Democracy in New York City (pictured at left) has been recognized for its merit by the Washington Irving Literary Medal given out by the St. Nicholas Society of New York City for excellence in the literary field at representations of New York’s history. To help further American knowledge of American history even farther Ted Widmer has helped establish a literary award of his own in 2001 for recognition in the field of America’s early era history. The award named the George Washington Book Prize awards a $50,000 prize to the author of the book which “contributes to a greater public understanding of the life and career of George Washington and/or America’s foundering era” as described by the awards description. The important aspect of the award is that the book selected must have provide the public with a better understanding of American history and not an esoteric group of scholars and experts in the field.

Perhaps Ted Widmer’s greatest accomplishment was his work through the C.V. StarrCenter for the Study of the American Experience at Washington College in which he helped develop programs to enrich the knowledge of American history to groups that were lacking in their comprehension of that history. Through his programs he brought a more stimulating learning experience to under-funded inner city schools in Maryland all the way to Muslim college students in Anti-American regions of the world. More specifically during his work in at the C.V. Starr Center he developed the prototype in conjunction with the Untied States State Department for the American Studies Institute which “invite[s] undergraduate college students (pictured at right) exclusively from Islamic backgrounds to study American culture and history up-close and in-depth. A grant of $250,000 from the State Department covers 90 percent of the cost of the program” as described by John Buettner of media relations in a 2004 article published by Washington College on Collegenews.org.

Ted Widmer’s unwavering dedication to the not only national, but international expansion of the understanding and knowledge of American history through his books and the programs that he has brought into existence qualifies him to receive the Doctorate of Human Letters. For Widmer has shown that he is an outstanding citizen of the United States of America. He has helped to educate the public in areas that they have been found wanting in and has even extended that branch of knowledge to diverse groups of individuals such as Muslim students living in anti-American locations shortly after a time in America’s history when such actions may not be the most popular in American society. Widmer’s courage and dedication to his field of history makes him an indispensable figure to modern American society in which he would have much knowledge to pass on a new generation of graduates through a commencement address for he is the living embodiment of his field, something that any individual who has labored for the past four to five years on a degree in their field.

History C.E.: The Digitalization of History in the Computer Era

One of the biggest challenges facing history as the world becomes more obsessed with the concept of instant gratification is whether or not it can survive in a world of technologically driven individuals. Many people lack the patience and interest in sifting through documents and dusty volumes of books in a library. The world wants everything at their finger tips just a mouse click away. History has come to the realization that it must embrace the changing world before it also becomes history and lost forever leaving a world without any concept of the events that shaped the world. The topic of digitalized historical resources and the reliability of information found on the internet has been a highly celebrated and disputed issue. For in one aspect history is being preserved for future generation through the efforts of numerous institutions, according to American Historical Association, so that the information they provide will not disappear, but on the other hand that information is competing with sites that have a question reputation for reliability just as Legal History demonstrates. That is why this week in my posts I have decided to explore two other academic blogs to address and understand the academic opinions of individuals in relation to the advancement of history in the technological age. I worry however, that both the digitalization and other internet sources will actually hinder the true meaning of history and how individuals understand it, my concern rests with the reliability of the information. The comments that I made for two blogs are provided below.

Digitalization: Two Comments

Comment 1: Preserving the Past: The Digital Way

The Library of Congress’s continued project to digitalize fragile book collections and United States history volumes gives all the semblance of being an important and revolutionary step in the preservation of historical documents. Despite the fact that the documents will be preserved for as long as the internet and other digital resources exist the originals may be lost forever. Can certain fundamental aspects of the originals be transferred to the digital preservations? To fully understand the importance of primary sources requires full examination of the originals for the texture, weight, coloration, and condition of the paper. Not only is there a question of whether or not the sources are accurately preserved or not there also remains whether or not they will be used as digital sources. For there exists a plethora of historical resources on the internet and many individuals do not spend the time to distinguish between the authentic resources of the Library’s project and other unreliable sources of information such as Wikipedia. I hope that the weight of the name of the Library of Congress can be enough to place reliability behind the project giving people incentive to use them over other internet sources. (Comment is pending moderation on blog post)

Comment 2: Study on Wikipedia accuracy in History

The historical accuracy of internet resources has been a contested topic in academic circles between both instructors and students in the historical field. When presented with a new assignment automatically students turn to the internet as their first source of research. An initial search of most topics typically provides Wikipedia as a top source without having the professional knowledge to know whether or not the information is accurate and the strong academic competition to find that one fact that sets one paper apart from another with a revolutionary idea many students find it difficult to question what they are reading on the screen. Being a student of history I have learned through my experience to question Wikipedia, but I find that many of my contemporaries find it difficult to know what to question and what not to question when using online resources. To know that the site holds a much substance as a Reader’s Digest makes the understanding of its reliability clear. However, there should exist a guide to know what sources to trust and what sources to be skeptical of for students when they are conducting research, for as this post points out in some aspects Wikipedia is more informative then Encarta.

Couch Cushions: The Resting Place of America's History

In a 2006 episode of the NBC late night talk show The Tonight Show in which comedian Jay Leno conducted a segment titled Americana, one of his recurrent comedic numbers called “Jay Walking” in which he received the following answers while conducting random interviews on American history in the Universal Studios Hollywood Theme Park. Q: “What day was Independence Day? What year?” A: “July 4, 1864.” Q: “How many justices on the Supreme Court” A: “12.” Q: “What President was named ‘Tricky Dick’?” A: “Bill Clinton.” These question and answer segments have become not only humorous exchanges but also regular examples of the lack of basic knowledge that Americans have about their country and its beginnings. Americans’ historical apathy is what the United States Mint is hoping to combat beginning February 15, 2007 with the first distribution of the Presidential $1 Coin Program. Will the introduction of coins exalting past Presidents remedy the deficiency in public knowledge or will the former heads of state be regulated to jars, drawers, and couch cushions?

The Presidential $1 Coin Program is a result of the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005. The law stipulates that coins with a monetary value of one dollar will be issued honoring the deceased presidents of America in the order in which they served beginning with George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. The mint will release four coins a year through 2016. Following the year 2016 the release dates of the coins will vary. This is due to the requirement within the Act that the President must be deceased for two years before his (or her) likeness is to be placed on a coin. US-Coin-Values-Advior reports that by 2014 both President Jimmy Carter and President George H. W. Bush will turn 90 years old and President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush will be 68. For those presidents who are elected in 2008, 2012, and 2016 there will have to be further legislation passed to determine the proper dates of their immortalization.

The new coins will be strikingly different in appearance than other commemorative coins. The photograph on the right illustrates the larger images placed in the center of the coin regulating the phrase “E Pluribus Unum” or the more familiar “In God We Trust” to the edges of the coin, a technique that US-Coin reveals has not been used since 1933. An image of the Statue of Liberty will be placed on the back. In addition to the distinctive look of the coins and scheduled releases, the program act requires that there be a national outreach program to publicize the release of the coins. A mailer sent out by the United States Mint confirms that the purpose for the introduction of the Presidential $1 Coin Program is to promote collection of the coins and stimulate interest in American history. The decision to initiate the Presidential Coin program is based on the Mint’s previous success with the 50 State Quarters Program. The Mint claims this program increased circulation and collection of quarters.

Despite the best wishes of the United States Mint to inspire national pride of the people, there still remains the fact that many individuals are opposed to a dollar coin. According to an article provided to Discover by Alan Burdick titled “The Math of…Pocket Change,” many people have a hard time accepting more coinage as part of their monetary transactions. In the article Burdick states that $10.5 billion in change simply sits around people’s homes. “80 percent of adults say they save loose change rather than try to spend it.” Even though this article was published in 2003, I believe that the information still holds true today. The government’s main point of advocacy for the introduction of the Presidential Coin Program is the 50 State Quarters Program. The original 50 State Program had been in progress for over four years at the release of the article, demonstrating that despite the governmental claims of success, the Quarters Program was not making a significant difference in the population’s increased use of coins. In 2003, the Coinstar National Currency Poll cited in Burdick’s article that, people were not treasuring their quarters by using them for legal tender, but instead to scratch off lottery tickets, for magic tricks, steady table legs, or makeshift tools.

It is not only citizens of America that are resistant to the adoption of the new dollar coin. Businesses are also resistant. According to US-Coin, retail industries would be required to modify their cash registers. As the image on the left demonstrates, they are not equipped to handle a significant influx of dollar coins. This became evident with the introduction of the Sacagawea dollar in 2000 on the lower right. However, the cost to modify cash registers proved to be too great, resulting in retailers refusing to adapt the then, diminishing the use of the dollar coin. The government hopes that the new Presidential coins will not fall to the fate of the Sacagawea dollars, but if the expenditure remains the same, and it will, many venders will continue to stand their ground and decline to accept the money when they can keep the original registers already equipped to handle paper bills.

Jay Leno’s “Jay Walking” pieces have emphasized that America’s education about its foundations is inadequate. The government has awoken to the disparity of knowledge. However, its strategy for raising America’s IQ is not the most effective method considering the cost that retailers would have to bear to make it work. The strongest argument against the Presidential Coin is Americans’ aversion to using coins. Presidents and history will end up between the cushions of couches across America despite the outreach program’s desire to increase the interest in usage presented in the Presidential $1 Coin Act.