Kids--do you agree?
Kelli Hughes
how to raise your kids. Clark and I pretty much agree on how to raise
our kids (we almost agree too much that is is scary!!). Clark and I
have been discussing WHEN we think we might want to have kids. I am
thinking we will start trying in about a year. He says he doesn't
know. He says he really doesn't know if he will be ready then. I don't
want him to make a decision right now, but I thought he would at least
say maybe. We will have been married 3 years, then. It would be a good
time in my career to take some time off. Financially, we are fine right
now, and we should be even better by then!! We both realize that it
just has to be right. But, I also know that there is never a perfect
time to have a baby. Have any of you had disagreements about when to
have kids? How do you think you will know it is right? Clark says he
thinks it has to do with what our relationship is like. It needs to be
stable, I agree, but we are very stable now. We don't argue very much
at all. We love being together. I think in a year or so, we will be
even more stable than we are now. Do you think he is just scared? I
don't want to plan it all out, but I feel we should at least think about
it.
Kelli
Wende A. Feller
>
> But, I also know that there is never a perfect
> time to have a baby. Have any of you had disagreements about when to
> have kids? How do you think you will know it is right? Clark says he
> thinks it has to do with what our relationship is like. It needs to be
> stable, I agree, but we are very stable now.
I'll admit it -- I have a lot of trouble understanding how people choose
the "right" time to have a baby. It seems like there would *always* be
some good reason to wait for an even better time, and it would be
awfully easy to make yourself crazy trying to decide. You make yourself
so conscious of what you'd be giving up by not having the freedom of
being "just the two of you" this month, next month, etc.
We agreed before getting married that we were ready for kids whenever
they were ready for us. Had we gotten a foothold on the reproduction
bandwagon this year, it would have made some of our frantic travel a lot
more difficult, but either we would have managed the travel, or we would
have managed to do without the travel. That decision took a lot of the
"how much do I care about THIS client or THIS project" issue off the
table. Having made the decision that HFCs are wanted and will have to be
a higher priority than *something*, we've left it to God or chance
(whichever you prefer) to make the ruling on *which* opportunity will be
the one we pass by because someone has to change the diapers.
I don't think either of us would have gotten married until we'd reached
an agreement. The Catholic thing forces it on you -- if you play by the
rules as written, you have to be ready to deal with a baby before your
first anniversary, and the choice *not* to play by the rules is still
somewhat of a big deal, although plenty of Catholics make that choice.
It's not taken for granted that of course the first thing you do upon
becoming engaged is start the pill or other contraception, so it's a lot
more difficult to postpone or avoid the discussion about what you *will*
do.
He probably *ought* to be scared of having kids -- but it's the sort of
fear that people learn to live with.
Wende
Kelli Hughes
> I don't think either of us would have gotten married until we'd reached
> an agreement. The Catholic thing forces it on you -- if you play by the
> rules as written, you have to be ready to deal with a baby before your
> first anniversary, and the choice *not* to play by the rules is still
> somewhat of a big deal, although plenty of Catholics make that choice.
Well, not necessarily. I have some very good friends that are Catholic.
They did not use birth control (except rhythm), and they just had their first
baby near their 4th anniversary. I am pretty sure it was planned too! :) I
know that method is not for sure, but it worked for them. I have another
friend that it didn't work for (she's not Catholic, though -- the pill made
her sick, and that was her choice of birth control). She is due in
December. They've only been married one year. I have other friends that
just got pregnant. They've been married 2 years and are Catholic, but they
didn't play by the rules. She was put on the pill for medical reasons. They
planned their pregnancy. All my friends are having babies!! It is really
exciting, but we are not quite ready yet. Whenever we decide to start ttc,
we are aiming to have the baby around April or May (I know, we shouldn't tyr
to plan it to the month, but we're gonna at least try) because I am a
teacher, and that would be the perfect time so I can quit my job and still
get paid for the whole year.
Kelli
KathyK
Kelli Hughes <kdhu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > I don't think either of us would have gotten married until we'd
reached
> > an agreement. The Catholic thing forces it on you -- if you play by
the
> > rules as written, you have to be ready to deal with a baby before
your
> > first anniversary, and the choice *not* to play by the rules is
still
> > somewhat of a big deal, although plenty of Catholics make that
choice.
>
> Well, not necessarily. I have some very good friends that are
Catholic.
> They did not use birth control (except rhythm), and they just had
their first
> baby near their 4th anniversary. I am pretty sure it was planned too!
:) I
> know that method is not for sure, but it worked for them.
>
>
Those friends may have used rhythm (which you are correct... is not very
good), but remember that the Catholic church is now promoting the use of
NFP - Natural Family Planning (not to be confused with rhythm). After
being at 4 Engaged Encounter weekends this year (observing and
presenting), I feel like I've heard the talk almost enough times to
present it. NFP is a very successful method to plan when not to and
when to become pregnant. In fact, one of the couples in our EE
community (who is also an NFP presenting couple), has been successfully
childfree for 5 years. Now that they have both finished up their PhDs,
they have shared that they may be using it to plan when to get pregnant
very soon.
--
--Kathy Kula
TDC Snow White, Keeper of Sockpuppets
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Wende A. Feller
>
> Those friends may have used rhythm (which you are correct... is not very
> good), but remember that the Catholic church is now promoting the use of
> NFP - Natural Family Planning (not to be confused with rhythm). After
> being at 4 Engaged Encounter weekends this year (observing and
> presenting), I feel like I've heard the talk almost enough times to
> present it. NFP is a very successful method to plan when not to and
> when to become pregnant.
Right -- but NFP takes a *lot* more conscious commitment than just
taking the pill, and it requires the commitment from both partners.
That's why I say that if you play by the rules, you have to confront the
possibility of babies from the git-go; it's not that NFP doesn't work,
but that it can't be tackled anywhere near as casually as taking the
pill, nor does it allow you to get one injection or implant and not
think about the question for the next three months. Since NFP means
abstinence right at the time of the month when hormonally, women should
be most eager to relax, it's a very high-effort method of family
planning. It's very much with you and part of the relationship, in the
way that a little packet kept in the medicine cabinet is not.
Wende
c...@my-deja.com
"Wende A. Feller" <vybo...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> I'll admit it -- I have a lot of trouble understanding how people choose
> the "right" time to have a baby. It seems like there would *always* be
> some good reason to wait for an even better time, and it would be
> awfully easy to make yourself crazy trying to decide. You make yourself
> so conscious of what you'd be giving up by not having the freedom of
> being "just the two of you" this month, next month, etc.
Well, for us the "right" time includes a few things:
1. Getting our finances in order. That doesn't mean we have X
in the bank, but that my student loans are mostly paid off and
my cc debt is wiped away, so that if we do choose to work less,
it's not a financial hardship on us or the kids. (Despite our
love of travel, we live *very* simply, and would continue to do
so regardless of how much money we had available. But I don't
want to be in the position of depending on welfare to support
my family - and I feel *extremely* strongly about that.)
2. Getting our work goals in order. This means when I am no
longer a student and we're in actual positions which are less
likely to change every couple of years. People argue about
whether the best time is when you're a student/post-doc/just
starting the tenure fight, for me as a potential mother, it'd
be post-doc time for a variety of reasons. He is now starting a
"real" position, and I'll be post-doc'ing in a year, so we're
on the right track.
3. Having a "home" as opposed to a temporary living situation.
The reality is that our HFCs will likely be uprooted more than
once, but we didn't want to be in an apt/have to move every
year or two type of situation. This includes buying a property
(as opposed to renting) that we can afford on his salary alone.
Renting wrecks too much havoc with a tight budget.
Given these factors, about 3 years' time from now seems about
right. I'll be 33 then, so biologically, this shouldn't be too
risky. And certainly, in the last year or so, we've both felt
more ready emotionally. We've not really focused on what we'd
be "given up", because we know enough people who enjoy a family
lifestyle while still being regular adults that I have no
problem with finding a balance.
--
Cherise
direct email: roh...@nd.edu
jpetr...@my-deja.com
Kelli Hughes <kdhu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Have any of you had disagreements about when to
> have kids? How do you think you will know it is right?
Yes, we disagreed. He wanted to start almost right away... he thought
waiting a year after our wedding was waiting long enough. We were
married at age 23 (both of us). Part of his view was influenced by the
way he grew up - almost all of his extended family start young.
Specifically, his younger brother already was married, had a house
and a daughter by the time we got married. DH thought it would be great
if the cousins were close enough in age that they could play together.
Another factor was looking at our parents. After DH and his brother
moved out from "home," their parents started really enjoying themselves
- going out dancing and taking trips. My parents, OTOH, are older and
have slowed down. They don't get out much. DH wants to be more like his
parents.
Then there's me. I wanted to get a master's degree, and we couldn't
afford for me to quit work and attend school full time. Also, I was
enjoying our time together. One big thing was my career - I wanted
to position myself where I could demand flexibility at work if
required by family life, while still feeling productive and rewarded,
and I wasn't there yet. Most importantly, I just wasn't ready. I have
never been an infant person... whenever I saw a mother toting a baby
carrier, instead of getting all oogly I'd feel sorry for her. I
had to wait for my feelings of disgust to subside. It's not like I'm
looking forward to changing diapers - I'd prefer it if babies came
potty-trained and able to carry on conversations - but we'll manage.
Perhaps I "won" the timing issue, since we'll have been married four
years by the time this baby is born. But it really was a compromise,
because I only took the four graduate courses that are most interesting
to me and put the rest of my education on an indefinite back burner.
This baby and DH's second neice will be about 1.5 years apart in age.
Jeanne Petrangelo
--
!Notice! I don't read this email address due to
spam. To reply directly to me, take out the
spaces: jpetrang @ harris . com
kate
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Kelli Hughes wrote:
->But, I also know that there is never a perfect
->time to have a baby. Have any of you had disagreements about when to
->have kids? How do you think you will know it is right?
A. and I are both 30. We'd like 1-3 children (hee--depends on how much I
like being pregnant, mostly, as we both think that he's better suited to
child-rearing than I [after they're weaned, of course]) and I'm getting
freaked about my body Having Different Plans about the whole thing. We're
not too keen on adopting nor on heroic pregnancy-inducing measures, so
we've decided that when we have x dollars in the bank--dollars newly saved,
not stuff we've already got--then we'll go for it. Realistically, that
means a year or so after getting married, based on the goal we've set.
We'd also like to let the chips fall where they may during the honeymoon,
and then go back to being responsible, but since I'm having surgery about
two weeks after the wedding, it might not be a good idea.
Kate
**********
who's getting married in 37 days!
to reply, replace whatever nonsense is after the @ with speakeasy dot org
c...@my-deja.com
jpetr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Another factor was looking at our parents. After DH and his brother
> moved out from "home," their parents started really enjoying themselves
> - going out dancing and taking trips. My parents, OTOH, are older and
> have slowed down. They don't get out much. DH wants to be more like his
> parents.
Just wanted to say, don't let this hold you (hypothetical
"you") *too* much. So much depends on each individual's
health, lifestyle, and desires. My parents were both old
*and* young parents. They had their first at 22 (mom)& 24
(dad) 10 months after they married, and their last at 38 &
40, so they were in their late 50s by the time the youngest
left the house. However, they're doing so much more now
than they ever did. They have the time, and even though my
dad's health isn't perfect, they're fairly healthy and
active overall. They travel a fair bit (mostly to visit
their kids and grandkids), are involved in plenty of
actitivies, and mostly enjoy life (tho we have to convince
my dad that he *is* getting too old to climb up on the roof
to repair it! He's 67). I suspect they'll start slowing
down a bit in the next 5-10 years, though in some ways
they're probably more fit and healthy now than they were at
50, because their life styles have changed so much.
Our aim is to stay healthy an active all our lives so that
we can continue to have fun with kids and after they're
grown (no guarantees of course...).
C.
KathyK
c...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Just wanted to say, don't let this hold you (hypothetical
> "you") *too* much. So much depends on each individual's
> health, lifestyle, and desires. My parents were both old
> *and* young parents. They had their first at 22 (mom)& 24
> (dad) 10 months after they married, and their last at 38 &
> 40, so they were in their late 50s by the time the youngest
> left the house. However, they're doing so much more now
> than they ever did. They have the time, and even though my
> dad's health isn't perfect, they're fairly healthy and
> active overall. They travel a fair bit (mostly to visit
> their kids and grandkids), are involved in plenty of
> actitivies, and mostly enjoy life (tho we have to convince
> my dad that he *is* getting too old to climb up on the roof
> to repair it! He's 67). I suspect they'll start slowing
> down a bit in the next 5-10 years, though in some ways
> they're probably more fit and healthy now than they were at
> 50, because their life styles have changed so much.
>
> Our aim is to stay healthy an active all our lives so that
> we can continue to have fun with kids and after they're
> grown (no guarantees of course...).
>
> C.
Good point Cherise! My parents are about 10 years younger than Stan's
parents (Stan is the youngest child in his family and I'm the eldest),
but his parents go on fun vacations, interact more with their
grandchildren, etc.. My parents have poorer general health and never do
anything active or fun (or together for that matter - they're too busy
working and taking care of my aging grandmother to even see each other).
--
--Kathy Kula
TDC Snow White, Keeper of Sockpuppets
Gainesmk
think of something that is coming up soon that will interfere with ttc, being
pregnant, or having a small child. And obviously you both need to be committed
to the effort.
The main thing for us was to look at the whole picture. We had been married
for less than a year when I decided that I wanted to get off the Pill (I'd been
on for many years and wanted to get away from taking hormones every day). It
was about 6 months after that (with charting and figuring out that I wasn't
o'ing) that we really took stock of the situation. I had one fertility problem
(endometriosis) and the possibility of another (PCOS), I wasn't o'ing... We
wanted 2 or 3 children, and I didn't want to be pg after 35. We were 26-27 at
the time. We wanted a house but knew that it wasn't crucial for having a baby.
We also wanted me to stay home, and felt that we had enough in savings to
either buy a house or have me stay at home. We also had the added support
that both of our mothers just retired, and while they are 90 minutes away (in
different directions), they could take some pressure off should we decide that
I needed to go back to work with a small baby (part-time day care, part time
with rotating Grandmas).
After putting all of that together, we just decided to try. We knew that it
could possibly take quite a while to conceive, then another 8 months of me
working after that. We felt that those 8 months would prepare us for being
parents.
What I can say now is that you should try to make sure that the relationship is
as secure as possible before ttc. TTC itself can be very, very stressful. It
can take away the fun of relaxing - the man can feel pressure to perform, and
the woman can be so caught up in ttc that relaxing becomes a chore.
Miscarriage is very common (I think 1 in 5 of known pregnancies) but can really
throw you both for a loop. And if there are any infertility problems, that can
also be extremely stressful to both of you.
hth -
kellie
Kelli Hughes
>
>
> Those friends may have used rhythm (which you are correct... is not very
> good), but remember that the Catholic church is now promoting the use of
> NFP - Natural Family Planning (not to be confused with rhythm).
They may have used NFP. I really don't know because I don't really know the
difference, and I didn't ask them specifically. I just know they were
playing by the rules. They may have used NFP.
Shari
so, of course, we waited. I am NOT a patient person, so I guess this
was a character building lesson for me. What Erick was concerned about
was wanting one last summer for "just the two of us." We're going
backpacking next week in Yosemite (yay!) and he didn't want me to be too
far along (or immobilized by morning sickness) to go.
As far as waiting till finances are right, we both came to the same
conclusion: you never know when one or both of you could lose your
job(s), face a devastating illness, or otherwise be faced with a
financial emergency. Everything could be going fine and then *zap*
through no fault of your own you're facing big money problems.
Therefore, we've decided not to let money rule our decision-making
regarding TTC.
Of course, we are careful to try and tuck a little something away each
month for a rain day and live modestly, but beyond that, what could we
realistically do? Not much... We refuse to allow the choices we make to
be dictated solely by our checking acct. balance. This is stating it in
an extreme, but I hope I've made my point. We don't want to live in
fear of financial "what-ifs."
Take care,
Shari
Visit my home page at http://community.webtv.net/sharih/Welcomehome
Shari
c...@my-deja.com
I should have added a little background here. This is
something that is *so* ingrained in me that I can not
ignore it. When I was born, my parents were completely
broke. They had just tried to start a business and lost
everything but the house we were living in. They're both
incredibly hard workers, and certainly I never suffered
from it, but I did see what they went through, how hard it
was on them to make ends meet on a regular basis. They
also drilled into all of us kids to *not* get married and
have kids until we were in a good financial positon -
meaning a stable job, education, a place to live, a
savings we could fall back on should that job not be so
stable or some other catastrophe occur. I can't even begin
to imagine having kids if we can barely make ends meet.
(We're not in that dire straits now, but my debt won't
just magically disappear on it's own if one of us is
unable to work).
My niece is about to have a baby. She and her husband both
work minimum wage, factory type jobs. While they can make
ends meet now, and will be able to manage with the baby,
they're living on the edge. They also live in an
economically-depressed area. They will have enough family
support should they fall over that edge, so they wouldn't
be thrown out on the street, but it's not going to be an
easy road -or even a remotely comfortable one. Had they
waited a few years to get a "cushion" of $$ or had she
finished college so she'd be in a better position to look
for work should she need to, the future wouldn't be so
daunting. I guess it scares me because I know too many
people in that situation - and the cycle of poverty just
goes on and on. (it also frustrates me in a way because my
parents worked so hard to *break* that cycle, but my
niece's situation is another story....) In any case, I'm
going to take the time to encourage her to try to find a
way to continue schooling while she's a SAHM. It's a bit
difficult, though, given the area they live in. (College
isn't for everybody, and one can definitely succeed w/o
it; but given their circumstances, their opportunities are
severely limited without a higher education .)
Well, so that's why I think it's important to be
"financially ready" before having kids.
C.
Wende A. Feller
> [snip]
> They
> also drilled into all of us kids to *not* get married and
> have kids until we were in a good financial positon -
> meaning a stable job, education, a place to live, a
> savings we could fall back on should that job not be so
> stable or some other catastrophe occur. I can't even begin
> to imagine having kids if we can barely make ends meet.
> (We're not in that dire straits now, but my debt won't
> just magically disappear on it's own if one of us is
> unable to work).
Ah, but not all newly married couples are "barely making ends meet." :)
I know a lot of participants in this ng got married right after college
or during grad school -- but that's not universal. A couple who gets
married after they've both been out of college and working
"professional" jobs for, say, 7 or 10 years probably starts their
marriage in a sufficiently financially comfortable position to think
about kids immediately with no hardship. That depends on how they
managed their money while single, of course! But even though hubby and I
didn't separately start dragging home real money until about 1995, and
we're not in the lawyer-and-surgeon class by a long shot, there just
isn't any financial problem with having kids now. Being newly married
doesn't *necessarily* mean being financially unready for parenthood.
Both Phil and I were raised by parents who were poor for most of our
childhoods. Phil and all four of his siblings went to college; obviously
I went to college for an appalling number of years. I just don't see the
"cycle of poverty" at work here.
Wende
Karin Lin
> Those friends may have used rhythm (which you are correct... is not very
> good), but remember that the Catholic church is now promoting the use of
> NFP - Natural Family Planning (not to be confused with rhythm).
Can some of the Catholics in this group clear something up for me? I've
been wondering about this for a long time, but didn't know who to ask
since my closest Catholic friend just gave birth a few weeks ago so it
seemed inappropriate...
What is the justification for allowing NFP at all? If the purpose of
"relaxing", according to Catholicism, is procreation as an act of love
between a man and a woman (this is where I may be misunderstanding or
oversimplifying) than it seems that waiting for the non-fertile time in
a woman's cycle to make conception unlikely isn't much different from
using a condom...you're still actively trying to prevent the sperm from
reaching the egg, and you're still "relaxing" with no intention of
conceiving.
I can understand the objection to birth control methods like the IUD
(and Pill, sometimes) which work after conception, but I don't see how
"relaxing" at a carefully calculated time is philosophically much
different from "barrier" methods of contraception. Is the difference
just in the amount of commitment that NFP requires?
Karin
Wende A. Feller
>
> Can some of the Catholics in this group clear something up for me? [snip]
>
> What is the justification for allowing NFP at all? If the purpose of
> "relaxing", according to Catholicism, is procreation as an act of love
> between a man and a woman (this is where I may be misunderstanding or
> oversimplifying) than it seems that waiting for the non-fertile time in
> a woman's cycle to make conception unlikely isn't much different from
> using a condom...you're still actively trying to prevent the sperm from
> reaching the egg, and you're still "relaxing" with no intention of
> conceiving.
>
> I can understand the objection to birth control methods like the IUD
> (and Pill, sometimes) which work after conception, but I don't see how
> "relaxing" at a carefully calculated time is philosophically much
> different from "barrier" methods of contraception. Is the difference
> just in the amount of commitment that NFP requires?
Ooooh... I'm honestly not sure that explaining the reasoning will clear
anything up, as the official reasoning itself is pretty muddy. Fr.
Andrew Greeley, the sociologist, credits the _Humanae Vitae_, the
document that states the Church's stand on contraception, with doing
more to drive people away from the Church (and to erode trust in the
Church among people who remain Catholic) than any other event in the
20th century, including the radicalism of the 1960s. That said, I'll
tell you what the official line is.
The post-Vatican II doctrine on "relaxing" is that it serves two equal
purposes within marriage: procreation, and the emotional closeness of
the couple. All acts of relaxation are supposed to be open to serving
both purposes. Contraception is therefore forbidden because it
interferes with the procreative purpose of marriage. Natural Family
Planning in its various forms (there are actually at least three,
including the discredited "rhythm method") is allowed because it
consists only of knowing what the woman's body is doing naturally
anyway. God put the cycles there so that there would be times when a
woman is not fertile, and he intended couples to continue to relax
together during those times... so if those happen to be the only times
that you relax... it's not really interfering with procreation.
Part of the reason that Catholics and "recovering Catholics" have
trouble swallowing this doctrine is that the bishops almost reversed it
in the late 1960s. The bishop-level consensus at the time, led by the
European bishops, was that rational family planning, including the use
of artificial contraceptives, did not violate the doctrine that marriage
must include "openness to children" -- it merely used the available
technology to assure that children were wanted at the time of their
arrival, just as we use the available technology to fix all sorts of
injuries and physical conditions. The Pope over-rode the bishops and
issued the HV. This is not one of the "infallible" doctrines, but we are
supposed to listen to what the Pope says.
Debate around NFP is therefore passionate, occasionally to the point of
being mean. On the positive side, there's a lot to be said for an
accurate method of family planning that doesn't require any hormones or
equipment -- I react very badly to even low-dose versions of the pill
and would hesitate to use it again even if the Pope personally blessed
every contraceptive factory in North America. On the negative side, I do
get tired of hearing that NFP is good for women because it forces their
husbands to "court" them anew every month, or because "taking the pill
is turning your body into a chemical factory for your husband's
pleasure." If I want to be able to relax all month long, it's not *my
husband's* pleasure I'm thinking about, thankyouverymuch! The
institutional Church often seems to be very uncomfortable with female
"relaxuality", not to mention relaxuality in general. We're not supposed
to think that being relaxual beings within marriage is sinful, but we
sure limit how often a "good Catholic couple" can relax without becoming
the parents of 12.
That's probably waaaaay more than you wanted to know!
Wende
Kelli Hughes
Wende A. Feller wrote:
> Ah, but not all newly married couples are "barely making ends meet." :)
> I know a lot of participants in this ng got married right after college
> or during grad school -- but that's not universal. A couple who gets
> married after they've both been out of college and working
> "professional" jobs for, say, 7 or 10 years probably starts their
> marriage in a sufficiently financially comfortable position to think
> about kids immediately with no hardship.
Wende is right, BUT not everyone who gets married right out of college has
financial hardships either. We got married before either of us had
graduated. Clark worked in college. He had a co-op position at the company
he now works for. He had a job lined up, but he still had his senior
project to do the summer we were married. I still had a year left in
school. Clark had money through college, though. His gradnfather left all
of his grandchildren enough money to go through college, so all the money he
earned was his, not going to college. My parents took out loans, but they
are paying them back because they want to pay for my college. Clark got a
good job as a mechanical engineer and worked part time until he finished
college. He even had enough money to pay cash for his car (yes, his Porsche
911) and still have plenty of money left over. I graduated exactly a year
after we were married. I got a job as a band director. We both make pretty
good money. We have never had to worry about money since we have been
married. We have almost no debt and never have. That is mainly because we
both handled our finances well through college as individuals. We also have
a lot of money in savings that we kind of pretend we don't have. We are not
very frugal right now because we don't have to be. We could be if we had
to, though. We don't waste money, but we don't try to save every penny we
can either. I am now in my 2nd year of my job, and he is in his 3rd. We
are doing just fine as usual. We bought a house over a year ago, and we
also bought me a car in December. We watned to pay cash, but we didn't have
the funds to pay the whole thing at the time (right before Christmas!). It
is almost paid off, though. We plan to do that soon.
I just wanted to point out that even though you get married right out of
college, doesn't mean you are not financially stable. We could have had
kids fianacially right when we got married. But emotionally, no way!! We
are just not ready for that responsiblilty and lack of freedom quite yet.
We are still on our honeymoon!! We're trying to stretch it out for 3
years. :)
Kelli
Vicky Larmour
>female "relaxuality", not to mention relaxuality in general.
Wahey! Three cheers to Wende for inventing the best word I've heard in a
long time :-)
Shall I add it to the FAQ? :-)
Vicky
--
vicky.larmour[at]camcon.co.uk All opinions mine.
Piglet was still a little anxious about Tigger, who was a
Very Bouncy Animal, with a way of saying How-do-you-do,
which always left your ears full of sand.
KathyK
Karin Lin <ka...@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> What is the justification for allowing NFP at all? If the purpose of
> "relaxing", according to Catholicism, is procreation as an act of love
> between a man and a woman (this is where I may be misunderstanding or
> oversimplifying) than it seems that waiting for the non-fertile time
in
> a woman's cycle to make conception unlikely isn't much different from
> using a condom...you're still actively trying to prevent the sperm
from
> reaching the egg, and you're still "relaxing" with no intention of
> conceiving.
>
> Karin
>
Well, as the priest on our most recent EE weekend put it during the sex
& sexuality talk. paraphrasing here... "Sexuality is a gift that God
gives married people so that theycan feel His love while here on Earth,
through each other."
So, relaxing in the infertile times is a time for the couple to be
"life-giving" to each other by sharing God's love. NFP is a
"life-giving" process because it allows a couple to plan when to be life
giving by sharing God's love together and when to use that love to
create a new life. Granted, it does take both partners actively doing
something each day to track it properly, but that allows both partners
to be involved in deciding when to share God's love between themselves
and when to procreate.
Life-givingness is something discussed at length in one of the Catholic
Engaged Encounter talks (I think moral decision making). Essentially,
all decsions made by a married couple should "give life" in some way.
--
--Kathy Kula
TDC Snow White, Keeper of Sockpuppets
Wende A. Feller
>
> So, relaxing in the infertile times is a time for the couple to be
> "life-giving" to each other by sharing God's love. NFP is a
> "life-giving" process because it allows a couple to plan when to be life
> giving by sharing God's love together and when to use that love to
> create a new life.
Okay, here's the kind of question that will get me excommunicated one of
these days... how does this differ from the pill? With artificial
contraception, short of sterilization, the couple can choose when to be
"life-giving" by trying to create a baby (you just go off the
contraceptive) and when to be "life-giving" by cherishing each other in
the marriage. And it's a lot less stressful than wondering every month
if you reached the wrong conclusion about your mucus, temperature, or
calendar...
Wende
KathyK
The way one NFP couple explained it was that the pill actively prevents
conception during fertile times... there isn't even a possiblity of
becoming pregnant unless you go off of it.
One woman (who I'm not sure had her facts straight) said that some forms
of oral contraception allow conception to take place, but abort the baby
by starving it by not allowing teh uterine lining to develop. I don't
know how factual this information is, but just hearing her say it made
my Catholic guilt rise by an order of magnitude.
Remember... I'm not pushing NFP, just reporting back to you what I hear
at the presentations on the weekends I've been observing/presenting at.
Actually, Stan and I were thinking of taking the classes when we do go
off the pill (one more month), so that we can better determine when I'm
ovulating to help our efforts. Since I am on the pill for medical
reasons, and was basically incapacitated a few days each time my
"friend" came (pre-pill), I'm not looking forward to being off the pill
and receiving that particular "friend" for more months than I need to.
Ellen Brawn
We didn't agree but I suppose we didn't disagree too seriously. My
husband wanted children straight away I wanted to wait until between 2
and 5 years after being married and definatly until we were on our feet
and neither of us had careers sorted out though. I always thoughst
though if Mark had a job and I was still really struggling to get one
that maybe it would be a good oppotunity to have our first child.
However as you may have guessed Mark won and our first was born just
under a year before our first wedding anniversary. Suprisingly I'm
enjoying it an it's no where near as scary as I'd thought it would be and
I'm glad it worked out that way. We've managed to get part way on our
feet with help from income support and housing benefit although we're a
long way off a mortgague and my husband's just started a job after a long
time of trying to find one. I'm glad he didn't find one soomer though as
I really needed his help around the house at the end of pregnancy and
during Rebecca's first few weeks and I was glad not to be left on muy own.
As for when to have a second I'm not sure we degree now although we
haven't talked about it properly recently. Mark says he's extremely
happy with just one for now, and so am I (nd Mark's the one who wanted 5
of them originally!) - I think really he wants to leave it up to me. He
knows that because I was an only child that I don't want Rebecca to be on
her own butwe both think Rebecca wouldn#'t cope that well with a brother
or sister for a long time so we thinks it's impostant to wait until she
will wait to understand what's going on. I think in 3 years would be a
good time to try for another, maybe 2 years if I decide I can't wait that
long.
ELlen.
Wende A. Feller
>
> The way one NFP couple explained it was that the pill actively prevents
> conception during fertile times... there isn't even a possiblity of
> becoming pregnant unless you go off of it.
See, here's where I see the pro-NFP arguments as having logical holes
you can drive a truck through. What you're essentially saying is that
NFP is okay because it can't be counted on to work... and that God is
less powerful than a little pill (which, given the failure rate of the
pill even when used correctly, doesn't seem to be true). A barrier
method like condoms or a diaphragm can be stopped at any time, with no
chemicals to remove from the woman's system, but these are also
forbidden.
> One woman (who I'm not sure had her facts straight) said that some forms
> of oral contraception allow conception to take place, but abort the baby
> by starving it by not allowing teh uterine lining to develop. I don't
> know how factual this information is, but just hearing her say it made
> my Catholic guilt rise by an order of magnitude.
Again, this definitely isn't true of barrier methods, which are also
forbidden. It's a lovely argument to inflame people's emotions :), but
it doesn't really deal with how happily married couples who welcome
children use contraception to increase their chances of being able to
raise "wanted" children responsibly. What bothers me about the typical
pro-NFP arguments is largely that they don't seem to respect the
intelligence or marital commitment of the people who are expected to use
NFP. As a *technique*, I have no problem with NFP; I'm not a fan of
relying on medication of any sort (I use ibuprofen etc. when nothing
else seems to work, but it's not my first choice), so I'd rather not be
involved with dosing myself with hormones and welcome an alternative.
But when our local archbishop states that any married couple who even
thinks about artificial contraception is completely lost to sin, I do
wonder why he gave up on rational discussion in favor of emotionally
laden accusations.
> Actually, Stan and I were thinking of taking the classes when we do go
> off the pill (one more month), so that we can better determine when I'm
> ovulating to help our efforts. Since I am on the pill for medical
> reasons, and was basically incapacitated a few days each time my
> "friend" came (pre-pill), I'm not looking forward to being off the pill
> and receiving that particular "friend" for more months than I need to.
As the Last Catholic Woman With a Regular & Healthy Monthly Visitor, I
will state outright that, given a choice between producing eight
children after the age of 35 (with accompanying health risks and serious
financial implications) and using artificial contraception to limit our
output to two or three strongly wanted children whose healthy parents
will be able to pay the mortgage, my conscience could live with using
artificial contraception. It's not my *first* choice, but I have trouble
believing that God gave me abilities to serve society, only to send me
home to be perpetually pregnant. And I'd rather argue it with God than
with the bishop; one of them is perfect in understanding, and I don't
think it's the guy in purple.
Wende
Gainesmk
Don't take this in the wrong way but I think that you are kind of missing the
point here. Yes, you and Clark were financially well off right after college
BUT that is directly because your college was paid for by your parents and his
grandfather. Do you see what I mean? If you'd had to pay for your own college
years (either by working, or loans), you probably wouldn't have started out so
financially secure. If they hadn't paid for you, it's probably unlikely that
you would have come out of college with enough income/savings to be able to buy
your house and your car right away - you would have been paying off loans/debts
from college. I think Cherise (?) was referring to people who get out of
college and have loans/debts that are fairly substantial.
kellie (who really hopes that it wasn't offensive, just making a point)
Rose Bingham
<vybo...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>"relaxuality", <snip> relaxual beings
Now this has me LOL-ing. I believe we have just invented new word
forms for "relax".
Rose
reply to philro at cwjamaica dot com
irish...@my-deja.com
KathyK <kathry...@pharma.novartis.com> wrote:
> One woman (who I'm not sure had her facts straight) said that some
> forms of oral contraception allow conception to take place, but
> abort the baby by starving it by not allowing teh uterine lining
> to develop. I don't know how factual this information is, but
> just hearing her say it made my Catholic guilt rise by an order of >
> magnitude.
Kathy,
I think you're safe enough. According to the little info sheet that
used to come with my pills, oral contraception works in three ways:
1 - it prevents ovulation by keeping the hormones at a similar level to
when pg.
2 - it prevents the meeting of the egg and sperm by increasing teh
thhickness of the CM, so that the sprem can't get through.
3 - in the highly unlikely event of both ovulation occuring and a sperm
getting through (assuming that it's being taken properly), the uterine
ling is not sufficiently thickened to allow a zygote to implant. The
chances of this happening are many orders of magnitude less than a
failure to implant if no contraception is being used.
Jean
Kris Hildrum
>In article <7oc6js$bg1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> KathyK <kathry...@pharma.novartis.com> wrote:
>> One woman (who I'm not sure had her facts straight) said that some
>> forms of oral contraception allow conception to take place, but
>> abort the baby by starving it by not allowing teh uterine lining
>> to develop. I don't know how factual this information is, but
>> just hearing her say it made my Catholic guilt rise by an order of >
>> magnitude.
>
>Kathy,
>
>I think you're safe enough. According to the little info sheet that
>used to come with my pills, oral contraception works in three ways:
One comment--different pills work different ways. I seem to
remember that progesterone-only pills (and depro-provera) rely more
heavily on changes in the uterine lining than do estrogen pills.
But this is a memory from years ago, so it could be faulty.
Kris
Karin Lin
> The post-Vatican II doctrine on "relaxing" is that it serves two equal
> purposes within marriage: procreation, and the emotional closeness of
> the couple. All acts of relaxation are supposed to be open to serving
> both purposes. Contraception is therefore forbidden because it
> interferes with the procreative purpose of marriage. Natural Family
> Planning in its various forms (there are actually at least three,
> including the discredited "rhythm method") is allowed because it
> consists only of knowing what the woman's body is doing naturally
> anyway. God put the cycles there so that there would be times when a
> woman is not fertile, and he intended couples to continue to relax
> together during those times... so if those happen to be the only times
> that you relax... it's not really interfering with procreation.
Okay, but if God really intended couples to relax during infertile parts
of the woman's cycle, why all that stuff in Leviticus about a woman
being "unclean" during her period, which seems directly to discourage
relaxing during infertile times? I guess I would have expected the
Church to say that couples ought to use the knowledge of a woman's cycle
to make sure that every act of relaxation was life-giving, i.e.
encourage abstinence on all BUT the fertile days. A bit difficult for
modern society to swallow, but it seems much more in tune with the whole
"relaxation is for procreation" idea.
> That's probably waaaaay more than you wanted to know!
I was about to say that it was worth it for the introduction of the term
"relaxuality" alone, but Vicky beat me to it. :) Seriously, though,
thanks for such a fascinating history; I had no idea the ban on
artificial contraception was nearly lifted once.
Karin
Wende A. Feller
>
> Wende A. Feller wrote:
>
> > [snippage]
> > anyway. God put the cycles there so that there would be times when a
> > woman is not fertile, and he intended couples to continue to relax
> > together during those times... so if those happen to be the only times
> > that you relax... it's not really interfering with procreation.
>
> Okay, but if God really intended couples to relax during infertile parts
> of the woman's cycle, why all that stuff in Leviticus about a woman
> being "unclean" during her period, which seems directly to discourage
> relaxing during infertile times?
The stuff in Leviticus is Mosaic Law, which the Roman Catholic Church
generally does not observe. And our priests are probably very grateful
that we no longer follow the instructions related to "animal entrails,
use of in ordinations." Within the first two centuries after Jesus, the
Christian community shifted from being a majority of baptized Jews, who
lived by the Jewish law but added Christian observances, to being a
community largely of baptized gentiles, who neither knew nor cared about
the Jewish law. By the time Christianity became the official religion of
the Roman Empire in the early fourth century, Mosaic Law was no longer
part of the package deal.
This means there are parts of the Bible that the Catholic Church ignores
-- actually, that just about all Christian denominations ignore. I can't
think of any mainstream denomination that does the ritual uncleanliness
observances, even denominations that are much more Biblically literalist
than Catholics.
You'll hear the terms "old covenant" and "new covenant" bandied about.
The way these terms are supposed to be used now is that the "old
covenant" is God's deal with the Jewish people, which is still in force
and includes living by Mosaic Law as laid down in the first five books
of the Bible. The "new covenant" is God's offer of redemption to anyone
who accepts Jesus as saviour and is baptized; this Christian covenant
uses the Gospels as its basis and doesn't include Mosaic Law.
I guess I would have expected the
> Church to say that couples ought to use the knowledge of a woman's cycle
> to make sure that every act of relaxation was life-giving, i.e.
> encourage abstinence on all BUT the fertile days. A bit difficult for
> modern society to swallow, but it seems much more in tune with the whole
> "relaxation is for procreation" idea.
I think we need to keep you away from the Pope! Seriously, don't skip
over the distinction between "relaxation is ONLY for procreation" and
"relaxation should be open to procreation but also gives the couple a
closer bond." If relaxation were ONLY for procreation, there would be a
problem with allowing a person who is infertile to marry, and that's
never been suggested by the Church even in its wilder-eyed moments.
> > That's probably waaaaay more than you wanted to know!
>
> I was about to say that it was worth it for the introduction of the term
> "relaxuality" alone, but Vicky beat me to it. :) Seriously, though,
> thanks for such a fascinating history; I had no idea the ban on
> artificial contraception was nearly lifted once.
You're welcome! Non-Catholics -- and even some Catholics -- often see
the Roman Catholic Church as this monolithic entity that figured out its
version of The Truth in 303 C.E. and has marched along in lockstep ever
since. Actually, a lot of the Catholicism you see in old movies reflects
practices dating from only the 19th century, and Vatican II led to
questioning and changing a lot of those. The Church looks a lot like any
other international organization in terms of politics, internal
arguments, and gradual but emphatic change. (And, since we believe we're
arguing over God's will, we can get pretty passionate about it.)
Wende
Kelli Hughes
No, you didn't offend me. I understand your point, but it was actually Wende, and
she didn't say people who have loans. She just said "people who get married right
out of college." I did assume that she meant people who have loans and other debt,
but I was just pointing out that not everyone has those loans and debt to pay off
right out of college. Even if I was paying my loans right now, we would still be
in good shape. I think people get into trouble when they have lots of credit card
debt. I have always been good about not accumulating debt whenever possible. I
also worked all through college and saved up quite a bit. Clark hates debt!! He
wants to pay cash for everything. I had to talk him into paying our mattress off
(interest free) because it would just be a lot easier, and we really needed the
mattress then and it was on sale. We also didn't buy our house right when we got
married. We rented for a year. We bought our house when both of us got jobs and
we knew we would be staying here. I understand your point, but I was just pointing
out that yes, many college graduates have lots of debt when they get out, but not
*all* college graduates. I felt Wende was making a generalization that wasn't
entirely true (don't think she meant to, though). :)
Kelli
Wende A. Feller
>
> No, you didn't offend me. I understand your point, but it was actually Wende, and
> she didn't say people who have loans. She just said "people who get married right
> out of college." I did assume that she meant people who have loans and other debt,
> but I was just pointing out that not everyone has those loans and debt to pay off
> right out of college.
Actually :), it was Cherise who was arguing that it's necessary to wait
and plan for kids because newly married couples are barely scraping by,
and I pointed out that, while this might be true of people who get
married just out of college (note the "might"), it really was unlikely
to be true of couples who've been out in the working world for a while,
especially if both have post-college professional-level incomes. My main
objection was to the generalization that having babies immediately is
automatically financially irresponsible.
I had no debts after college, but I went straight into grad school which
effectively kept me broke. Back when he finished college, Phil got a
real job and could easily have afforded kids -- but he hadn't met me
yet, so the point is moot.
Wende
RNR
based on grades. Kind of like a scholarship. If they keep an A average,
we will pay for it all, 3.0 and lower 50%, 2.0 and lower gets maybe 25%,
maybe nothing, we haven't decided completely. If they're screwing off in
college, we don't want to subsidize that, they can party for much less
money. If they're really trying, we want to help, and if they can get
other scholarships and grants, without loans, then we'd love to subsidize
the rest, but we'll keep the above scale (obviously more thought out) and
they can either go get the scholarships or work, but the rest will be
their responsibility. Kind of a transition to being in charge of their
lives comepletely.
Regards,
Ranee
Microsoft is preparing for the next millenium with a new
version of Windows called Windows 2000. The target for
release is first quarter, 1901
Robin
> Rich and I have decided that we will pay for college/trade schooling
> based on grades. Kind of like a scholarship. If they keep an A average,
> we will pay for it all, 3.0 and lower 50%, 2.0 and lower gets maybe 25%,
> maybe nothing, we haven't decided completely. If they're screwing off in
> college, we don't want to subsidize that, they can party for much less
> money. If they're really trying, we want to help, and if they can get
> other scholarships and grants, without loans, then we'd love to subsidize
> the rest, but we'll keep the above scale (obviously more thought out) and
> they can either go get the scholarships or work, but the rest will be
> their responsibility. Kind of a transition to being in charge of their
> lives comepletely.
Except that this tends to penalize kids who want to challenge themselves.
In high school I took all honors and AP classes, and didn't get stellar
grades (good--not stellar.) If I'd taken "regular" classes I wouldn't
have learned nearly as much, but darn it, I would have gotten that TV for
straight As! In college, I majored in Computer Engineering, and didn't
get stellar grades. I could have dropped back to an easier major (hell,
an easier college! The college of engineering requires 136 very specific
hours to graduate, all the other colleges only require 120. That means
an extra semester of classes in the same four years!) and gotten stellar
grades. I'm really glad I didn't.
--
There's no need to e-mail me a copy of a follow-up; but if you do,
please identify it as such.
Vicky Larmour
>In college, I majored in Computer Engineering, and didn't
>get stellar grades. I could have dropped back to an easier major (hell,
>an easier college! The college of engineering requires 136 very specific
>hours to graduate, all the other colleges only require 120. That means
>an extra semester of classes in the same four years!) and gotten stellar
>grades. I'm really glad I didn't.
I really don't get this "hours required to graduate" concept. What if
you sleep through one of the classes? Do you still get the hour's
credit?
When I did my degree, the basic concept was that there would be
lots of series of lectures, each covering one aspect of Computer Science
(say "Optimising Compilers" or "Database schemas") going on throughout
the year. At the end of the year we would sit three examination papers,
on three consecutive days, each of which would include a mixture of
about 20 questions, taken from several of the lecture series. You had to
pick 5 questions to answer on each paper.
So, if you wanted to completely avoid "Optimising Compilers" in the
exam, you could, provided you were confident enough about enough of the
other subjects to be sure you would find 5 questions on the paper that
you were able to answer! Some people would make sure they knew a few
subjects inside out, so they would defintely be able to answer the
questions on those subjects, and others (like me) would make sure they
had a reasonable level of knowledge about all/most of the subjects, to
give a sporting chance of finding 5 questions to answer on the paper.
If you wanted to learn the subject from a book rather than from
attending the lectures, fine (although it's useful to get some idea of
the questions from past papers, so you know what to expect).
We also had "supervisions", one per lecture series subject, per week,
where two students and one "supervisor" (usually lecturer or researcher
in the relevant area) go over the material covered in that subject that
week and set questions to be done as homework for next week's
supervision. So even if you didn't want to answer "Optimising compilers"
questions in the exam, you still had to show knowledge about it through
the year, but the work done wouldn't directly affect your final result.
Wende A. Feller
>
> In article <MPG.1213f8554...@nntp.blk.adelphia.net>,
> rob...@SoftHome.net (Robin) wrote:
> >In college, I majored in Computer Engineering, and didn't
> >get stellar grades. I could have dropped back to an easier major (hell,
> >an easier college! The college of engineering requires 136 very specific
> >hours to graduate, all the other colleges only require 120. That means
> >an extra semester of classes in the same four years!) and gotten stellar
> >grades. I'm really glad I didn't.
>
> I really don't get this "hours required to graduate" concept. What if
> you sleep through one of the classes? Do you still get the hour's
> credit?
Actually, the "hour" is a measure of the total value of the course, not
a count of the actual hours you spend in class. Some colleges call it a
"credit," which may be less confusing. Basically, the way it works is
that courses are worth a certain number of "hours" or "credits" --
usually a number between 1 and 5 -- based roughly on how many hours *per
week* they meet. A one-credit course meets *about* an hour a week and is
usually something like an exercise class. A 5-credit course meets
*about* five hours a week and is more likely to be a course with a major
research requirement or a lab. Typical "ordinary" classes are 3 or 4
credits.
So, if you take a 3-credit course at a college that uses the quarter
system (10-week school terms), you actually are supposed to be in class
about 30 hours total. Whether anyone cares if you *are* in class depends
on whether the specific instructor takes attendance and counts it toward
the grade. The course is just "worth" three credits toward the typical
total of about 124 credits to graduate. Your grade point average is
calculated by multiplying the credit hours of each course and the value
of the grade -- so it does you less damage to get poor grades in a
2-credit course than in a 5-credit course.
There are differences between quarter-system (three 10-week terms),
semester-system (two terms of 15-18 weeks), and 4-1-4 (two 13-week
terms, with a 4-week January term between them), but the total number of
credits you take per year is *about* the same regardless of what system
your college uses.
> When I did my degree, the basic concept was that there would be
> lots of series of lectures, each covering one aspect of Computer Science
> (say "Optimising Compilers" or "Database schemas") going on throughout
> the year. At the end of the year we would sit three examination papers,
> on three consecutive days, each of which would include a mixture of
> about 20 questions, taken from several of the lecture series. You had to
> pick 5 questions to answer on each paper.
So that's how it works! This is very different from the U.S. Here, we
register for specific classes and have to meet a list of requirements
for each class. Each instructor can decide if he/she wants to give a
final exam, require a term paper, or what. There are no comprehensive
exams for the typical undergraduate degree. Master's students usually
have a choice of comprehensive exams or a thesis; doctoral students do
both, with the exams a few terms before submittal of the thesis.
So how do we know what courses to take? The university/college (we use
the terms almost interchangeably) lays down some rules that are called
"general education" or "breadth" requirements. These are courses,
usually taken in the first two years, that cover material any educated
adult ought to know. Once you choose a major, your department has its
own requirements -- usually a slate of specific "core" courses, plus you
can take a number of "electives" from a larger choice of courses. If you
have enough credits, but you didn't take the right courses, you can't
graduate.
> So, if you wanted to completely avoid "Optimising Compilers" in the
> exam, you could, provided you were confident enough about enough of the
> other subjects to be sure you would find 5 questions on the paper that
> you were able to answer!
And here, if the Computer Science department has decreed that every
graduate *must* understand how to optimize a compiler, you will register
for the Optimizing Compilers course, you will do your best to survive
it, and the resulting grade will appear on your record. If, however, the
course is an elective, you can ignore it completely and take something
else.
> If you wanted to learn the subject from a book rather than from
> attending the lectures, fine (although it's useful to get some idea of
> the questions from past papers, so you know what to expect).
Americans *believe* in the "show up for class" system! Our classes
aren't necessarily just lectures. I taught in a field where a lot of the
class time involved group discussion or the students giving their
speeches. The only lecture course I taught was the History of Theory
course, which typically enrolled 80 students and was required for the
undergrad speech major. Argumentation, intro to public speaking, and
group communication were all 22-student courses where we spent a lot of
time practicing and critiquing the skills they were learning.
> We also had "supervisions", one per lecture series subject, per week,
> where two students and one "supervisor" (usually lecturer or researcher
> in the relevant area) go over the material covered in that subject that
> week and set questions to be done as homework for next week's
> supervision.
Undergrad courses in the U.S. are rarely that individualized. The course
instructor sets the homework for everyone. Large lecture courses
sometimes have "study sessions" led by grad-student teaching assistants,
so that the students can ask questions and get explanations, but at UC
Davis, these had 20-30 students per section. I never did one of these --
even as a grad student, I was teaching my own courses.
Wende
Robin
> I really don't get this "hours required to graduate" concept. What if
> you sleep through one of the classes? Do you still get the hour's
> credit?
This may get long... keep in mind that you asked!
(This is all specific to Virginia Tech, although most US schools will
probably do something similar)
Each course is worth a certain number of credit hours, which roughly
corresponds to the number of hours per week that the class meets. Most
classes are 3 hours, either meetings for 50 min. MWF, or 75 min. TH.
Those are lecture classes. Some classes have an associated lab (for me
that means an electronics lab where you go hook up circuits) that is one
credit hour, but meets for three hours a week, all at once.
You get a grade (A, A-, B+, B...D-,F) for each class, depending on how
often you sleep through it =) and that determines the number of *quality*
credits you get. Each letter grade gets a multiplier, and that times the
number of credits for the class gives the number of quality credits. If
you fail a class it doesn't count towards your total credit count, and
it's multiplier is 0.
for example:
a B in a 3 credit class is 3*3=9. a B+ in a 1 credit class is 3.3*1=3.3.
In order to graduate, you have to meet several requirements.
To meet VA Tech's requirements, you have to have an overall QCA (Quality
Credit Average, the total of your quality credits divided by the total
number of credit hours) of 2.0, complete the "core curriculum" and it's
basically things you should have learned in high school, but maybe
didn't. That's my cynical take on it, anyway. There are a certain
number of hours of math, science, humanities, "art", etc. Each college
gets to "edit" the core curriculum, like the college of engineering
requires more math than other colleges, and less art. This makes up
about 18 hours. Then you have to meet all the specifications from your
college.
To meet the college of Engineering's requirements you have to have a
total of 136 credit hours, and meet the requirements for your department.
To meet the department of Computer Engineering's requirements, it gets a
lot more specific. You get six hours of in-major tech electives (any 3
or 4000 level CS or EE course that you weren't already required to take)
and three hours of out of major tech elective (3 or 4000 level course in
the college of engineering) and the rest of your classes (approx. 136-18-
9=109 are dictated by the department as to what they'll be. They don't
quite dictate when you'll take them, but most of them have prerequisites,
so there can't be a lot of variation. You also have to have an in major
(CS and EE classes) of 2.0.
Now, the college of arts and sciences only requires 120 credits instead
of the 136, and they get to pick their classes! My roommate was a
biology major, and had a handful of classes that she had to take (maybe a
year's worth) and the rest she got to pick from within the department.
Sort of like an engineer having two years worth of tech electives! Blows
my mind.
Oh, and 14-18 hours is a normal course load for a semester. Just because
that seemed important, and I didn’t think to write it anywhere else!
(Also, note that even though I can *describe* our system of graduation,
doesn't mean I think it's a good one. Yours seems much more logical.)
JulieD3964
>Master's students usually
>have a choice of comprehensive exams or a thesis
I wish! I earned a masters in government from the University of Virginia and
had to take comps plus write a thesis plus show proficiency in a foreign
language. I'll never forget staying over all of Christmas break one year just
to study for comps. I was living in a Range room at the time and the bells were
ringing in the Chapel on Christmas Eve. It was such a strange feeling to
literally be the only person on Grounds at the time.
Thankfully, I only had to take two comps for a master's degree. Doctoral
candidates had to take four plus show proficiency in either two languages or
one plus statistics.
Julie
Julie...@aol.com
Wende A. Feller
>
> Wende wrote:
> >Master's students usually
> >have a choice of comprehensive exams or a thesis
>
> had to take comps plus write a thesis plus show proficiency in a foreign
> language.
Well, I did say "usually." Comps-plus-thesis is pretty rare for an MA;
you got yourself into, and successfully out of, an especially demanding
degree program.
> Thankfully, I only had to take two comps for a master's degree. Doctoral
> candidates had to take four plus show proficiency in either two languages or
> one plus statistics.
Let's see... my comps for my MA involved 5 exams spread over 12 or 16
hours (it's been over a decade -- the details are blurry): four shorter
exams in the four "core" areas of the field (one of which is statistical
method) and one long exam in an area of specialization. Doctoral exams
were 32 hours, and I've forgotten how many areas were covered; since I
had to present at a conference out-of-town the weekend before, and take
my students to a speech tournament the weekend after, and teach a
lecture session during the week, that week is kind of a blur. I remember
doing Asian rhetoric and rhetorical criticism; I imagine there were two
or three other areas.
I'm fortunate in being in a field in which foreign languages are not
required. Phil was looking at a doctorate in medieval history, and he'd
have to have *four* foreign languages: Latin, Greek, and two modern
languages. He's now thinking about 18th-19th century American history,
which gets the language requirement down to one or two.
Wende
Vicky Larmour
>Vicky Larmour wrote...
>
>> I really don't get this "hours required to graduate" concept. What if
>> you sleep through one of the classes? Do you still get the hour's
>> credit?
>
>This may get long... keep in mind that you asked!
Thanks for explaining that (and thanks to Wende too, for her
explanation). It makes much more sense to me now!
Vicky Larmour
>There are differences between quarter-system (three 10-week terms),
>semester-system (two terms of 15-18 weeks), and 4-1-4 (two 13-week
>terms, with a 4-week January term between them), but the total number of
>credits you take per year is *about* the same regardless of what system
>your college uses.
Ah, pretty much all Universities/colleges here work on 3 ten week terms.
Cambridge (& Oxford? not sure) have 3 *eight* week terms, but (in
most subjects) cram the same amount if not more work into them as the
other places do in their ten weeks! (Hence why we are advised not to
work a job at the same time) :-)
>So how do we know what courses to take? The university/college (we use
>the terms almost interchangeably)
Here they are all strictly called Universities, although people refer to
it as "being at college" sometimes. "College" can also refer to "Sixth
form college", that is age 16-18 schooling. Confused? You will be :-)
In Oxford, Cambridge and Durham Universities, the University is divided
into colleges, and each student applies and then belongs to a particular
college. The college gives you accommodation, food, and social life, but
the University gives you the teaching (except the "supervisions" I
mentioned before, which are college-based :-)). Somehow it all fits
together and we do actually end up knowing whether we are coming or
going at any given time, honest :-)
[I should have said in my previous post, the comments about how it
worked for me were pretty Oxbridge specific. Other universities may and
do do it differently, with more "continuous assessment", modular courses
etc.]
>Americans *believe* in the "show up for class" system! Our classes
>aren't necessarily just lectures. I taught in a field where a lot of the
>class time involved group discussion or the students giving their
>speeches. The only lecture course I taught was the History of Theory
>course, which typically enrolled 80 students and was required for the
>undergrad speech major. Argumentation, intro to public speaking, and
>group communication were all 22-student courses where we spent a lot of
>time practicing and critiquing the skills they were learning.
We had practical classes too, associated with some of the lecture
series. We also had various practical assessments throughout the year
which counted towards the final exam grade, but they were normally
things like "write a program to solve this problem" in your own time and
then get interviewed individually about your solution to make sure you
hadn't just copied it off someone else (as if! ahem...).
One thing we never, ever had (sadly) was student participation in
lectures. In a lecture, you shut up and listened, and maybe asked
specific questions at the end; in supervisions, you participated and
discussed but that was only two of you plus the supervisor!
Peggy Galbraith
>
> I really don't get this "hours required to graduate" concept. What if
> you sleep through one of the classes? Do you still get the hour's
> credit?
>
Thought I'd add in how Duke handles it...it's a little more
straightforward. We didn't have course hours. Instead classes were worth
either .5 credits (ususally PE classes, or music lessons), a full credit
(the vast majority of classes, usually meeting for between 3 and 5 hours
a week), or 1.5 credits (very rare, pretty much only used to encourage
people to take accelerated foreign language classes which meet for 6
hours a week and also require a lab). A total of 36 credits were required
to graduate, no more than 2 of which could come from AP credit (I think
that's like IB in Europe). The usual course load was 4 credits per
sememster...you had to have permission to go below 3.5, and above 4.5.
As far as what classes were required, everyone had to fulfil a major and
general knowledge requirements. Each major had different rules, but mine
(art history and medieval/renaissance studies) just required that you
take 8 classes, including one at the graduate level (some of mine
overlapped, that's how I got a double major), distributed across various
concentrations within the discipline (some art, some literature, some
history, some philosophy). Some majors also have required classes; for
example, I know that Psychology requires a course in Statistics.
Each class was also designated to fulfil an Area of Knowledge requirement
(arts and literature, civilizations {history and philophy}, natural
sciences, social sciences, quantitative reasoning {math and engineering} and
foreign languages). Each student could decide to "drop" one of these
altogether (most people chose languages) and another to "deconcentrate in,"
meaning you only had to take 2 classes. In the other four areas, you had to
take 3 non-introductory level classes. I had arts and literature courses
up the wazoo, but had to scrape to find social sciences courses (I ended
up taking Political Science, since that was Rob's major and I liked
taking classes with him). Rob, OTOH, naturally had lots of SS and AL, but
he hated science, so he ended up taking Rocks for Jocks and "Our Living
Earth."
It was a pretty simple system, once you decided which areas of knowlegde
you liked. I've heard that they're tinkering with the system now, and
adding a layer. In addition to being categorized into and Area of
Knowledge, each class will also now be divided into a "Skill or
Methodology" category, such as Cross-Cultural Inquiry or Scholarly
Writing or Research, and there will be a certain number of each of these
skills required in order to graduate, too.
Peggy
Vicky Larmour
>On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Vicky Larmour wrote:
>> I really don't get this "hours required to graduate" concept. What if
>> you sleep through one of the classes? Do you still get the hour's
>> credit?
>
>Thought I'd add in how Duke handles it...it's a little more
>straightforward. We didn't have course hours. Instead classes were worth
>either .5 credits (ususally PE classes, or music lessons), a full credit
>(the vast majority of classes, usually meeting for between 3 and 5 hours
>a week), or 1.5 credits (very rare, pretty much only used to encourage
>people to take accelerated foreign language classes which meet for 6
>hours a week and also require a lab).
Thanks for your explanation too!
The other thing this reminded me of is that we don't have the concept of
"major" and "minor" degree subjects, and nothing like PE or music is
taught unless you are doing a degree in those subjects. (Actually some
newer Universities offer combined degree courses like "French with
Philosophy" or "Art History with Music", but those are relatively new
concepts).
If you sign up for a degree in subject X, then you go to lectures in
the many and varied facets of subject X and that is that. In Cambridge
at least, all lectures are actually open to all students, so if I wanted
to go to Art History lectures alongside my degree, I could have.
However, I couldn't have entered the Art History exams or got any sort
of credit for going to those lectures.
jpetr...@my-deja.com
vicky....@camcon.co.nospam.uk (Vicky Larmour) wrote:
> Ah, pretty much all Universities/colleges here work on 3 ten week
terms.
> Cambridge (& Oxford? not sure) have 3 *eight* week terms, but (in
> most subjects) cram the same amount if not more work into them as the
> other places do in their ten weeks! (Hence why we are advised not to
> work a job at the same time) :-)
How about four seven-week terms?! That doesn't include the optional,
additional expense, 6 week summer term. Well, each term has three
classes each.
My alma mater, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, is rather unique. WPI
doesn't count credit hours - each class counts the same, whether it
meets for four hours of lecture a week or nine hours of lab. If someone
wants to transfer credit to another school, they usually give a blanket
three credit hours per course. The exception is physical education
courses, which count as 1/3 of a class. A student can choose to
"overload" by taking four or five classes during one term, but they
have to be approved by thier advisor and they have to pay a little
extra. I know one dedicated student who overloaded each term in order
to graduate in three years.
Here's where it gets /really/ different - there is no grade point
average. Students earn an A, B or C, or it's not recorded that they ever
took the course. A certain number of courses each year are required to
a) continue getting financial aid, and b) to be allowed to enroll. A
certain number of courses are required to graduate, as well. Sometimes
students find themselves being overwhelmed by their work load or realize
that they are so far behind in one class, that they will "punt" one
class (just stop taking it) so they can devote their engergies to doing
better in their other classes. Sometimes students will find themselves
doing poorly in an important class, so they'll continue attending
lectures and doing assignments but will not take the final exam, so they
can take the class over again and get a better grade. I guess the reason
they did that is because graduate schools and some employers /do/ look
at grade point averages. The disadvantage to this tactic is that while
you're taking the same class over again, you're not spending the time
learning new material in a different class, or fulfilling your
requirement for having a certain number of classes.
I don't know about the other majors, but in EE there were about 5
classes that came "highly recommended." They were all but required. In
addition, in order to graduate in EE, I had to have a certain number of
classes in my major, a certain number of math classes, some sciences,
and some "interdisciplinary science" classes. IS classes were courses
that could be applied to two majors - for example, Assembler 1 could
count towards an EE or CS degree, so it was an IS course. If I took
three such IS courses, and only two were required, I could have one of
them apply towards my EE course requirement and the other two counted as
IS courses. If I wanted to, I could take any course that had nothing to
do with EE at all (even one in another major), as long as my
requirements were filled.
The order in which we took classes was not specified, but students
worked it out based on "recommended prerequisites" for the courses they
wanted to take. Anyone could sign up for any course, any term, but if
you didn't feel you had the recommended background knowledge, it would
be foolish to do so.
When WPI originally worked out this strange system of taking classes, in
the late '60's or early '70's, they only had Pass/Fail and there was a
big competency exam before graduation. I think they revised that system
after getting pressure from ABET (American Board of Engineering
Technology, or something like that), which accredits educational
programs so other people know they're good.
One aspect of that original "WPI Plan" that survived is the project
requirements. Each student is required to complete a Humanities
Sufficiency (the "Suff"), an Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP),
and a Major Qualifying Project (MQP). For the Suff, the student must
take any 5 related humanities courses, and instead of taking a sixth
class, they do a project based on that knowledge. For example, I took
literature classes and then wrote a big essay on Jane Austin. It was
something over 30 pages. For the IQP, students usually get in teams of
three and use three class terms to study some way technology and society
interact. I remember one student did a study on the effect of street
lightning on crime, and another studied the effects of road salt on the
environment (the roads are heavily salted in the winter to lower the
freezing temperature of ice). The MQP is also usually done in teams of
three, and is a three-term project specific to your major.
Jeanne Petrangelo
--
!Notice! I don't read this email address due to
spam. To reply directly to me, take out the
spaces: jpetrang @ harris . com
Peggy Galbraith
>
> The other thing this reminded me of is that we don't have the concept of
> "major" and "minor" degree subjects, and nothing like PE or music is
> taught unless you are doing a degree in those subjects. (Actually some
> newer Universities offer combined degree courses like "French with
> Philosophy" or "Art History with Music", but those are relatively new
> concepts).
>
> If you sign up for a degree in subject X, then you go to lectures in
> the many and varied facets of subject X and that is that. In Cambridge
> at least, all lectures are actually open to all students, so if I wanted
> to go to Art History lectures alongside my degree, I could have.
> However, I couldn't have entered the Art History exams or got any sort
> of credit for going to those lectures.
>
> Vicky
>
My understanding of this is that is has to do with the differences in how
Americans and Brits think of "University." In the States, you're
constantly being told that "you can't get anywhere without a college
degree" or "a high school diploma doesn't mean as much as it used to."
There's a lot of pressure for a lot of people to go to college, and it's
basically considered a pre-req to lots and lots of jobs, despite the fact
that what you actually learn at college is pretty much useless at those
jobs. Employers assume that they will have to train you at whatever it is
they expect you to do, but they want a "well rounded" employee to work with.
My impression of the university system in Europe has always been that it
is much more "career oriented." Also, since so much of it is subsidised
by the government, there is the expectation that only a select number of
students will actually be admitted, and the rest will attend a trade
school or something in order to prepare them for the work world. Here in
the states, anyone (literally ANYONE) with the money to pay for it can
attend a four-year school and get a bachelor's degree.
Community colleges and 2-year state schools in the US are much more "real
world." My brother got his Associate's Degree in Agriculture from a 2
year state school (practically for free), and he was only required to
take one "fluffy" course, called "Humanities" (a little Greek mythology,
a few poems they had to memorize, read _Romeo and Juliet_, and you're out
of there). All the rest of his courses had to do with his major:
accounting, animal science, botony, geology of soils, etc.
While I was in school, I took a course called "The Medieval University,"
and from what I learned, the British system in place today still greatly
resembles that model (makes sense, huh? Oxford still acts like Oxford).
The American model is much more closely related to later offshoots, such
as those that arose in the Victorian age. Specifically, Duke,
which places so much emphasis on producing well-rounded students, was
financed by tobacco barons who had been born poor and who were refused
admission to Princeton and Yale (who were working on the European model),
so they had a big inferiority complex. It was as if they thought that by
requiring Composition AND Rhetoric of all their students, they could
somehow out-do the big boys up North.
Peggy
Vicky Larmour
jpetr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Here's where it gets /really/ different - there is no grade point
>average. Students earn an A, B or C, or it's not recorded that they ever
>took the course.
We don't have that concept in the UK at all. Because we just get one big
exam (3 papers) at the end of the year, we just get one "grade" for the
whole year. The "grade" you get in your final year is the grade you get
for your degree.
However, the grades aren't A, B, C etc - they are (in descending order)
First
Upper Second (aka "two one" or 2:1)
Lower Second (aka "two two" or 2:2)
Third
Special
Fail
If you get a third or higher, it's an honours degree; the "Special",
which sounds good but isn't, stands for "Special Dispensation to an
Ordinary Degree" which means you get your Bachelors but it's not an
honours degree.
You can also get a "starred first" which means you did extraordinarily
well.
I got a 2:1, and DH got a 2:2, in all three years.
Vicky Larmour
Peggy Galbraith <pj...@duke.edu> wrote:
>My understanding of this is that is has to do with the differences in how
>Americans and Brits think of "University." In the States, you're
>constantly being told that "you can't get anywhere without a college
>degree" or "a high school diploma doesn't mean as much as it used to."
>There's a lot of pressure for a lot of people to go to college, and it's
>basically considered a pre-req to lots and lots of jobs, despite the fact
>that what you actually learn at college is pretty much useless at those
>jobs. Employers assume that they will have to train you at whatever it is
>they expect you to do, but they want a "well rounded" employee to work with.
>My impression of the university system in Europe has always been that it
>is much more "career oriented." Also, since so much of it is subsidised
>by the government, there is the expectation that only a select number of
>students will actually be admitted, and the rest will attend a trade
>school or something in order to prepare them for the work world.
What you just described above is exactly how it *was* here.
Unfortunately (IMHO!) the system is gradually changing to be much more
like the American model. Yes, Cambridge and Oxford are sticking as
fimrly to the guns of tradition as they can, but the newest Universities
are much more like the American ones, and the others are somewhere in
between.
Thanks for the interesting history btw (snipped so my newsreader will
let me post this!) - I didn't know about the tobacco barons and all
that.
Peggy Galbraith
>
> exam (3 papers) at the end of the year, we just get one "grade" for the
> whole year. The "grade" you get in your final year is the grade you get
> for your degree.
>
Sounds just like law school....it was a big adjustment for Rob to not get
ANY feedback for a whole semester, then be axpected to just miraculously
produce at the end (he did fine, though!). Undergrad, the vast majority
of my classes worked on what we called "10-15-25-50" which meant that
your grade was 10% a test administered after 5 weeks of class, 15% on a
test administered at 10 weeks, 25% on a term paper due the last day of
class, and 50% on a 3 hour exam after the class had ended. Some profs
flip-flopped the values of the final and the paper, though, depending on
their personal preference.
Wende A. Feller
>
> On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Vicky Larmour wrote:
> >
> > We don't have that concept in the UK at all. Because we just get one big
> > exam (3 papers) at the end of the year, we just get one "grade" for the
> > whole year. The "grade" you get in your final year is the grade you get
> > for your degree.
> >
> Sounds just like law school....it was a big adjustment for Rob to not get
> ANY feedback for a whole semester, then be axpected to just miraculously
> produce at the end (he did fine, though!).
Doctoral seminars are like that too -- you sit around and talk about
abstract concepts for 9 weeks, then magically produce a research paper!
The "core" courses at the U of MN had intermediate graded projects, but
most of the research seminars did not. (Same thing with the masters'
courses at UC Davis, but masters' courses at U of MN were more like
senior-level classes in their requirements.)
Undergrad, the vast majority
> of my classes worked on what we called "10-15-25-50" which meant that
> your grade was 10% a test administered after 5 weeks of class, 15% on a
> test administered at 10 weeks, 25% on a term paper due the last day of
> class, and 50% on a 3 hour exam after the class had ended. Some profs
> flip-flopped the values of the final and the paper, though, depending on
> their personal preference.
Boy, do university practices differ! I don't think I ever took an
undergrad class with that grading breakdown; there were usually more
graded projects crammed into the 13-week term. Not many of my classes
had both final exams and term papers. I never allocated the grades that
way, either, but most of the courses I've taught had a "performance"
component with speaking or writing -- when you're actually teaching
communication skills, you end up with a lot more 15% projects that
practice/demonstrate those skills. The infamous History of Theory course
required 8 three-page papers over the course of 10 weeks, which meant I
did a lot of grading that quarter... roughly 55 papers a week. Thank
heavens I had entertaining students!
Wende
aMAZon
> What I can say now is that you should try to make sure that the
> relationship is
> as secure as possible before ttc. TTC itself can be very, very
> stressful. It
> can take away the fun of relaxing - the man can feel pressure to
> perform, and
> the woman can be so caught up in ttc that relaxing becomes a chore.
Very true. And what fun is "relaxing" in this context?
> Miscarriage is very common (I think 1 in 5 of known pregnancies) but
> can really
> throw you both for a loop.
The worst part of it, for me, was that no one talks about it until it
happens. Your first pregnancy, you feel you're invulnerable, and
nothing is going to mar your dreams for the baby. If the first one
comes with no problems, you might have that same feeling with a second,
but if you've had any anxiety, or possibility of problems, you really
fear everything in a subsequent pregnancy.
> And if there are any infertility problems, that can
> also be extremely stressful to both of you.
That ties into the above. When you feel that your body will co-operate
with you, and produce a baby whenever you want one, you feel in
control. It doesn't always work that way. When it doesn't, you can
feel betrayed a little.
I enjoy reading the plans of the newlyweds here, but have enough
perspective to know that even the best-laid plans may go awry. I wish I
had had someone to talk with after my miscarriage, right when it
happened. I found folks to talk with, but it took a couple of weeks to
do so. I mention my experiences sometimes just to let folks know that,
should the same thing happen to them, there are people who would
understand.
--
aMAZon
zesz...@worldnet.att.net
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
HollyLewis
>have learned nearly as much, but darn it, I would have gotten that TV for
>straight As!
I used to be *so* jealous of my friends whose parents rewarded high grades with
cash! I got very nearly straight As in school (including AP courses, no less)
and my parents never gave me money for it. Of course, that was because I
didn't *need* that kind of incentive to do well in school; I would've earned
good grades regardless. Actually, I think my mom justified (to herself) buying
my senior class ring by thinking of it as $5 per A or something like that.
Which points up that my parents certainly gave me plenty of money as a
teenager; it just wasn't ordinarily tied to grades. But still, it felt unfair
to hear about my B-minus average friends scoring $20 for earning an A. :-)
I didn't know anyone whose college funds were dependent on grades, other than
the ones who had to stay off academic probation in order to keep their
financial aid. But although I understand Ranee's point about not wanting to
pay a kid to party, I'm not so sure about penalizing a B or C average kid who's
really working. I think most B students actually work a lot harder than most A
students, because part of the reason the A students do so well is that it comes
more naturally to them. (Or, I suppose, as Robin points out, they're taking
Underwater Basketweaving.)
Holly
RNR
holly...@aol.com (HollyLewis) wrote:
> I used to be *so* jealous of my friends whose parents rewarded high
grades with
> cash! I got very nearly straight As in school (including AP courses, no less)
> and my parents never gave me money for it. Of course, that was because I
> didn't *need* that kind of incentive to do well in school; I would've earned
> good grades regardless. Actually, I think my mom justified (to herself)
buying
> my senior class ring by thinking of it as $5 per A or something like that.
> Which points up that my parents certainly gave me plenty of money as a
> teenager; it just wasn't ordinarily tied to grades. But still, it felt unfair
> to hear about my B-minus average friends scoring $20 for earning an A. :-)
Whoa! I never heard of anyone getting that much for an A! I did have
one friend in high school who had an interesting set up with her folks.
She got $5 for each A, $3 for each B, nothing for a C, she paid them $3
for each D and $5 for each F. I don't know that we'd set that up with out
kids, but I thought it was better than just flat out paying them to do
what they're expected to do anyway. I have a hard time with associating
money with normal (not extra) chores, or working hard in school.
> I didn't know anyone whose college funds were dependent on grades, other than
> the ones who had to stay off academic probation in order to keep their
> financial aid. But although I understand Ranee's point about not wanting to
> pay a kid to party, I'm not so sure about penalizing a B or C average
kid who's
> really working. I think most B students actually work a lot harder than
most A
> students, because part of the reason the A students do so well is that
it comes
> more naturally to them. (Or, I suppose, as Robin points out, they're taking
> Underwater Basketweaving.)
Well, of course we'll also take into consideration what kind of courses
they're taking. It's just kind of an outline. We just don't want to
subsidize slacking off, if you know what I mean. If they're really
working at it, but struggling, we might try to advise them to seek a tutor
and group study and if that doesn't work, look into another field of
study, before we'd drop funds.
HollyLewis
>to go to Art History lectures alongside my degree, I could have.
>However, I couldn't have entered the Art History exams or got any sort
>of credit for going to those lectures.
>
>Vicky
Now that strikes me as very odd!
In the States, you're generally *required* to earn credits (units, hours,
whatever) in subjects outside your major for an undergraduate degree. We're
supposed to be well-rounded, you see, so a political science student has to
take at least two lower-division courses in math or hard sciences (thus the
ever-popular "Physics for Poets" type courses) and two courses in the arts or
literature; an Art History major has to fulfill the math/science requirement
and take some Sociology or Anthropology as well.
In fact, most students outside of more specialized colleges/departments like
engineering don't "declare" their majors until the end of their sophomore year
-- though of course most have *some* idea of what they'll major in, so that
they can fulfill the lower-division prerequisites for the degree.
Lower-division is, more or less, the first two years of college and
upper-division is the second two years, and most schools have some sort of
designation of whether a given course is a lower-division introductory or
for-non-majors type course vs. a more specialized or advanced upper-division
class. Lower-division lectures are more often of the shut-up-and-listen
variety, if only because there might be 200 students in the course, while
upper-division classes tend more toward the discussion model.
Going to lectures without taking exams or earning credits is called "auditing"
the class, and different colleges -- even different professors -- vary in their
attitudes toward it. It's often discouraged, I suppose because the university
figures anyone who's going to get the benefit of its courses should be paying
for the privilege, and it's usually non-full-time-students who want to do it.
Holly
JulieD3964
>Comps-plus-thesis is pretty rare for an MA;
>you got yourself into, and successfully out of, an especially demanding
>degree program.
Now that I think back on it, all of the grad programs I applied to had this
requirement. I didn't think much of it at the time and just figured it was
standard no matter where you went.
I don't know how "successfully" I got myself out of the program as I did not
stay for a Ph.D. and wouldn't have been invited to stay either as my work was
not of the highest caliber. I also didn't truly apply myself either so it's my
own fault. However, I'm glad I didn't stay because if I had, I know I never
would have met Matt and I wouldn't be where I am today.
>Let's see... my comps for my MA involved 5 exams spread over 12 or 16
>hours (it's been over a decade -- the details are blurry): four shorter
>exams in the four "core" areas of the field (one of which is statistical
>method) and one long exam in an area of specialization.
For the M.A., I had two comps: one in Constitutional Law and another in
National Institutions. Each was four hours long and I think I took one per day
over two days. Each comp was comprised of five or six questions with each
question having multiple parts. You had to handwrite the examination using blue
books and I recall using a stack of bluebooks. I bought ten and ended up with
one left over. Keep in mind that I have SMALL handwriting and I used both sides
of the pages.
Doctoral comps are identical to masters comps except you also have oral
examinations plus the dissertaion and defense.
>I'm fortunate in being in a field in which foreign languages are not
>required.
You are. As far as I know, almost all of the departments in arts & sciences at
UVA require the foreign language proficiency examinations. I know that in
American Government, there was never a need at any point for me to know a
foreign language unless I wanted to read Tocqueville in the original French.
Statistics would have been more useful. However, I already had taken enough
years of French to easily pass the examination which required you to translate
a one page magazine article using the help of a dictionary. I know people who
passed these exams without knowing a single word of Spanish or French!
Julie
Julie...@aol.com
Rose Bingham
> but I thought it was better than just flat out paying them to do
>what they're expected to do anyway. I have a hard time with associating
>money with normal (not extra) chores, or working hard in school.
hmmm... this is very interesting. I don't think I ever heard of
anyone's parents paying them for good grades. That's a totally new
one on me. I haven't really given it much thought - but I think I
would have to agree with Ranee. Of course, we might change our minds
but I can't see paying them for grades. I do think we would have some
sort of reward system but I think it would be based more on effort
(hard to measure I know) for starters - simply because you can have
one child that can work very hard to maintain a B average and another
that can skate and still get A's. (I maintained A+ averages through
3 years of accounting and hardly went to class - and I certainly
didn't do any homework. Of course, I thought it was great at the time
but, as a parent, I don't think I'd particularly want to reinforce
that by rewarding it.)
I'd also prefer to reward them with an experience (i.e a concert, a
camping trip or whatever - something they would enjoy) or buying them
something - rather than $. I know it's the same in that we are
spending money but... IMO, the reward would be better remembered (and
therefore, presumably we get more mileage out of it) if it's an
experience that they remember or some posession of theirs. I don't
know if that makes sense but it's sort of like the difference between
getting a wedding gift of $100 that is used to pay a bill vs. say,
some framed artwork that you just love and everytime you look at it
are reminded of the person who gave it to you. (Of course, I'm not
saying there's anything wrong with cash gifts...that's 95% of what we
got and we were very appreciative. However... the fact remains that
everytime I have a cappucino I think of my friends who gave the
machine to us.)
Rose
reply to philro at cwjamaica dot com
CatMom0823
Jeanne,
You always remind me of home! (Remember, I grew up in Worcester.) My mom works
right near WPI, and I know so many people who went there. :-)
Dianne
Vicky Larmour
>>have learned nearly as much, but darn it, I would have gotten that TV for
>>straight As!
>
>cash! I got very nearly straight As in school (including AP courses, no less)
>and my parents never gave me money for it. Of course, that was because I
>didn't *need* that kind of incentive to do well in school; I would've earned
>good grades regardless. Actually, I think my mom justified (to herself) buying
>my senior class ring by thinking of it as $5 per A or something like that.
>Which points up that my parents certainly gave me plenty of money as a
>teenager; it just wasn't ordinarily tied to grades. But still, it felt unfair
>to hear about my B-minus average friends scoring $20 for earning an A. :-)
Yes! Yes yes yes! When we did our GCSEs (a set of exams you take when
you are 16, you usually take about 9 or 10 subjects) loads of my friends
were getting 10 pounds / A, or their parents would buy them a horse if
they got more As for more than 1/2 of their subjects or whatever (yes, a
lot of kids at my school were quite spolied!) I remember asking my Dad
how much I would get per A, and his response was "a kick in the bum for
each A you *don't* get" :-) Yes, he was joking, but the point was there
- you're expected to try your hardest and get good grades *anyway*,
for the sake of having good grades, without financial incentive. As it
turned out I got my 10 As and my parents actually bought me a stereo as
a kind of "reward" - up to then I just had an ancient old radio and they
knew that a new stereo would be really appreciated.
>I didn't know anyone whose college funds were dependent on grades, other than
>the ones who had to stay off academic probation in order to keep their
>financial aid.
OOI, at least one of the Colleges that make up Cambridge University
"pay" their students according to how well they do in their end of year
exams. Most colleges allocate rooms randomly to first year students, and
then by a ballot process in subsequent years - you get allocated a
number at random and get to pick your room in order of number, with the
order being reversed the next year; Trinity College allocate the ballot
numbers based on exam results, so if you did well you will get an
earlier pick of rooms (and hence a nicer room, presumably). The colleges
also tend to give "book grants", where you can claim back a certain
percentage of the cost of books bought for your course; again Trinity
gives a larger percentage of "book grant" to students who have done well
in exams.
It seems to me that this is slightly counter-productive - the students
who have just done well in their exams are likely to be less in need of
a nice room and more books; or to put it another way, if you do poorly
in your exams, you risk ending up with a crappy room (not good for
studying in) and less incentive to buy more books since you'll have to
pay for them yourself!
Kate the Short -- Spamblocked!
"Wende A. Feller" <vybo...@skypoint.com> sat on the sofa and said:
>Vicky Larmour wrote:
>> In article <MPG.1213f8554...@nntp.blk.adelphia.net>,
>> rob...@SoftHome.net (Robin) wrote:
>> >an easier college! The college of engineering requires 136 very specific
>> >hours to graduate, all the other colleges only require 120.
>>
>> I really don't get this "hours required to graduate" concept. What if
>> you sleep through one of the classes? Do you still get the hour's
>> credit?
>
>Actually, the "hour" is a measure of the total value of the course, not
>a count of the actual hours you spend in class. Some colleges call it a
>"credit," which may be less confusing. Basically, the way it works is
>that courses are worth a certain number of "hours" or "credits" --
>usually a number between 1 and 5 -- based roughly on how many hours *per
>week* they meet. A one-credit course meets *about* an hour a week and is
>usually something like an exercise class. A 5-credit course meets
>*about* five hours a week and is more likely to be a course with a major
>research requirement or a lab. Typical "ordinary" classes are 3 or 4
>credits.
Exactly. Of course, "lab" classes like basic dance or psych plus lab or
whatever tend to have different counts. It's usually something like 1
credit per hour of class instruction, PLUS 1 credit per TWO hours of lab
instruction. My T/Th dance class for my acting minor met twice a week
for two hours each night (4 total) and was worth 2 credits. My English
classes generally met M/W/F hourly, and were worth 3 credits. My math
was M/T/Th/F hourly, 4 credits. My psych plus lab was M/W/F hourly
lecture (with a few questions, and it was the largest class I took!)
plus a 2-hour 18-person lab section on Tuesdays, and it was also 4
credits.
>> When I did my degree, the basic concept was that there would be
>> lots of series of lectures, each covering one aspect of Computer Science
>> (say "Optimising Compilers" or "Database schemas") going on throughout
>> the year. At the end of the year we would sit three examination papers.
>
>So that's how it works! This is very different from the U.S. Here, we
>register for specific classes and have to meet a list of requirements
>for each class. Each instructor can decide if he/she wants to give a
>final exam, require a term paper, or what. There are no comprehensive
>exams for the typical undergraduate degree. Master's students usually
>have a choice of comprehensive exams or a thesis; doctoral students do
>both, with the exams a few terms before submittal of the thesis.
Well, sort of. Often you'll have a final class you take during your
senior year of college which is supposed to be a culminating project or
paper. My honors college had a paper late junior or early senior year,
with the presentation of the paper late senior year. My acting minor
had a 1-credit individual project that needed to be completed (I put
together a one-woman show; my theatre tech-minor hubby did 1 credit of
set design and construction for Into the Woods, and it was a great
set!). But those classes aren't the make-it-or-break-it type.
As for grad school, gah. I did a MA Teaching (English), so half my
courses were ed courses and half were English. The ones in English Lit
were all evil courses where two papers (NO exams, and sometimes only one
paper) were the total graded efforts for the course! The writing course
was great, OTOH. The Ed. courses were totally different.
I had to write a "paper" (only Doctoral students actually wrote a Thesis
to defend) of around 50 pages, and rewrite it. I got a 3 on a scale of
6, as at that point I just wanted to get the hell out of grad school!
But I didn't have any Ed. exams to take, and I only needed to do the
rewrites that my professor and his assistant asked for-- I didn't have
to do an oral argument/explanation/defense of the thing.
>So how do we know what courses to take? The university/college (we use
>the terms almost interchangeably) lays down some rules that are called
>"general education" or "breadth" requirements. These are courses,
>usually taken in the first two years, that cover material any educated
>adult ought to know. Once you choose a major, your department has its
>own requirements -- usually a slate of specific "core" courses, plus you
>can take a number of "electives" from a larger choice of courses. If you
>have enough credits, but you didn't take the right courses, you can't
>graduate.
Sometimes people call those Gen. Ed. courses the core courses, because
they're the core of everyone's education. I think we had "core courses"
for the freshmen and sort of for the sophs (*plus* a senior-level course
in something that wasn't your major), then you had requirements for your
major/minor (including specific electives), and then everything-else
electives.
>> So, if you wanted to completely avoid "Optimising Compilers" in the
>> exam, you could, provided you were confident enough about enough of the
>> other subjects to be sure you would find 5 questions on the paper that
>> you were able to answer!
>
>And here, if the Computer Science department has decreed that every
>graduate *must* understand how to optimize a compiler, you will register
>for the Optimizing Compilers course, you will do your best to survive
>it, and the resulting grade will appear on your record. If, however, the
>course is an elective, you can ignore it completely and take something
>else.
Right. I have a criminal justice major friend who's struggled through
(and failed) her stats course TWICE. She's dyscalcic (like dyslexia but
with numbers). Talk about a challenge. -sigh-
>> If you wanted to learn the subject from a book rather than from
>> attending the lectures, fine (although it's useful to get some idea of
>> the questions from past papers, so you know what to expect).
>
>Americans *believe* in the "show up for class" system! Our classes
>aren't necessarily just lectures.
Well, some still don't. -grin- And some just do fun things like go to
the afternoon section of the calculus class on the days when the French
203 class wasn't meeting. (My boyfriend/husband-to-be was in that
class, and it led to us getting together.)
>> We also had "supervisions", one per lecture series subject, per week,
>> where two students and one "supervisor" (usually lecturer or researcher
>> in the relevant area) go over the material covered in that subject that
>> week and set questions to be done as homework for next week's
>> supervision.
>
>Undergrad courses in the U.S. are rarely that individualized. The course
>instructor sets the homework for everyone. Large lecture courses
>sometimes have "study sessions" led by grad-student teaching assistants,
>so that the students can ask questions and get explanations, but at UC
>Davis, these had 20-30 students per section. I never did one of these --
>even as a grad student, I was teaching my own courses.
Valparaiso didn't have that at all. The largest classes usually had a
lab component, so that was the "individualized" attention. You would
meet with your advisor (some professor in your field of study for major
and minor) who would help you pick your courses once a semester. If you
had an individual project or something, then you'd get individual
attention. But mostly classes were about 15-30 people who tried to get
into the subject matter (lit) or tried to explain how a problem was
solved (calc).
When I did "Little Red Schoolhouse" at the U. of Chicago for my grad
work (that's that composition/writing basics class), it had about 100
people during the summer! Lecture did allow for a few questions. We
broke into a TA session once a week to actually write paragraphs and
eventually an entire paper which solely demonstrated how to write
effectively. But that was my only TA experience other than the psych
lab stuff at Valpo.
kate.
| Kate the Short - Patron Saint - http://www.enteract.com/~katew/ |
| Help for new users of news: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/nnq/ |
| rg.frp.dnd FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq.html |
| xbooks FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/ - ICQ# 8375030 |
_____________________________________________________________________
People will believe anything if you whisper it. -- Farmer's Almanac
Kate the Short -- Spamblocked!
vicky....@camcon.co.nospam.uk (Vicky Larmour) sat on the sofa and
said:
>
>The other thing this reminded me of is that we don't have the concept of
>"major" and "minor" degree subjects, and nothing like PE or music is
>taught unless you are doing a degree in those subjects. (Actually some
>newer Universities offer combined degree courses like "French with
>Philosophy" or "Art History with Music", but those are relatively new
>concepts).
Yeah, the US high schools and colleges are definitely going the "broad"
route these days. Oh heck, lemme pull out Valpo's requirements for a BA
degree... (from 1993-1994 entering class, and I graduated in 1995...)
For the College of Arts and Sciences, you needed to have 124 credits.
12 Credits of this were the Freshman Studies Core: English
(composition), History, Theology level I (it's a christian school), and
a Seminar (semi-fun paper-writing and discussion course). You might get
out of the English and History if you took Advanced Placement exams in
high school and did well-- you could get up to 2 courses' worth of
credit if you got 4's or 5's!
47 Credits were for Academic Area Studies: 6 credits (2 courses) from
level II and level III theology; 7 credits (2 courses) of lit and fine
arts, usually english 200 plus some other lit or art or music or theatre
course; 8 credits (2 courses) of foreign language, and you could get
back-credit if you were placed into 103 (4 plus 4 cr.) or 204 (4 plus 8
cr.)... I got 12 credits as I placed into 204, so only had to take that
single French course; 3 credits (1 course) of non-Western/3rd world
studies, usually through something like cultural anthropology, a history
or politics course, or a religion course and often a cross-listed
course; 3 credits (1 course) of philosophy or history (and if you took
the Advanced Placement exams in high school, you might get credit for
history and not have to take this); 6 credits (2 courses) of Social
Analysis, from two different departments, but usually one would be
cross-listed (I did Cultural Anthropology and later did European
Geography in my semester abroad); 12 credits (3 courses) of Natural
Science and Mathematics, which had to be life, physical, and
mathematical sciences-- these were usually bio, chem, and some math,
though some fudged it with psych plus lab, meteorology plus lab (cool
course!) or rocks for jocks, and computer science; 1 credit (1 course)
of physical education, which was usually aerobic dance (me), run (Joel),
or swim (ack!), or two half-semester sport courses like golf or archery;
ANNNNNND Integrative Studies 400 in the junior or senior year, which was
some course not in your major but was a cross-cat course (often things
like art history or music appreciation or politics in society or stuff
like that).
Whew!
And that doesn't include the 30 credits (usually, sometimes more!) in
your Major field of study, and the 17 (sometimes more!) in your Minor
field of study. And they had their own requirements and
electives-within-requirements to choose from. And that's just BA, not
BS or B Music Ed or anything like that. BS usually let you get off with
less language, but you needed more science and math.
Luckily, many courses were cross-listed, meaning they applied to two
categories. Basic Dance was listed under theatre but could fulfill an
arts requirement. Geography of Africa would likely get you for social
analysis and for non-western/third world requirements. Same with
certain theology classes, history classes, and arts classes. Courses
required for your major could also fulfill some (but not all) of the
core requirements.
ObNewlywed: Joel and I got closer studying for the calc final that
would take care of part of our math/sci requirement. Who says studying
can't lead to good things?
kate.
| Kate the Short - Patron Saint - http://www.enteract.com/~katew/ |
| Help for new users of news: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/nnq/ |
| rg.frp.dnd FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq.html |
| xbooks FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/ - ICQ# 8375030 |
_____________________________________________________________________
---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7-----
You must be under this width to post. -- Usenet Amusement Park Rules
Kate the Short -- Spamblocked!
<Pine.SOL.3.91.990806...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu>,
Peggy Galbraith <pj...@duke.edu> sat on the sofa and said:
>
>There's a lot of pressure for a lot of people to go to college, and it's
>basically considered a pre-req to lots and lots of jobs, despite the fact
>that what you actually learn at college is pretty much useless at those
>jobs. Employers assume that they will have to train you at whatever it is
>they expect you to do, but they want a "well rounded" employee to work with.
>My impression of the university system in Europe has always been that it
>is much more "career oriented." Also, since so much of it is subsidised
>by the government, there is the expectation that only a select number of
>students will actually be admitted, and the rest will attend a trade
>the states, anyone (literally ANYONE) with the money to pay for it can
>attend a four-year school and get a bachelor's degree.
Truly, it depends on what you're looking for. I still think that a
university education (which does tend to amount to life, the universe,
and everything) does create a well-rounded person who can take on most
challenges. In most jobs, you will need to be able to read, interpret,
write, communicate, estimate, figure, interact, process, and the like.
You get those things from your english, history, math, art, and science
classes-- you look at how people or things relate to each other, how
they develop, how they communicate, how they fit into place. You get
perspective.
Now, if you're looking for technical work, a trade or associate's degree
is the way to go. But that often won't get you into management in your
field. Some people like it that way! :)
For teaching English, it's great, because there are SO many allusions
and references in literature that you need to know a little bit of
everything. My students and tutorees are often amazed that I can write
two different kinds of sonnets, explain acting to them, help show
geometrical proofs, solve and graph x2 - y2 = 0, talk about adrenaline
rushes and what drugs DO do to your body, discuss Darwin's theories of
evolution, compare the businessman in Renaissance Florence to the one in
Depression Houston, understand why concentration camps happened,
conjugate the verb avoir, describe how tornadoes work, and the like.
The art and lit stuff has given me the ability to organize my home
library and decorate the space according to balance, tone, perspective
(and design web pages along the same lines).
Sure, I can't automatically fix an engine to save my life, but I can
definitely figure out the best way to keep warm while waiting for a tow
truck, or I can read the manual to figure out the steps for changing a
flat.
KathyK
vicky....@camcon.co.nospam.uk (Vicky Larmour) wrote:
> In Oxford, Cambridge and Durham Universities, the University is
divided
> into colleges, and each student applies and then belongs to a
particular
> college. The college gives you accommodation, food, and social life,
but
> the University gives you the teaching (except the "supervisions" I
> mentioned before, which are college-based :-)). Somehow it all fits
> together and we do actually end up knowing whether we are coming or
> going at any given time, honest :-)
>
> Vicky
At Yale and a few other universities (Stan knows which ones) they have
the residential college system similar to what you had at Cambridge. He
seemed to think that was one of the really great things about Yale when
he was working there, but I don't seem to get why it is so great. At my
college (it's a University now, but it was a college when I attended), I
lived in a dorm that had it's own dining hall, and was on the opposite
end of campus from all ofthe other dorms, so we had a fairly tight knit
group in that dorm.
--
--Kathy Kula
TDC Snow White, Keeper of Sockpuppets
KathyK
holly...@aol.com (HollyLewis) wrote:
> > If I'd taken "regular" classes I wouldn't
> >have learned nearly as much, but darn it, I would have gotten that TV
for
> >straight As!
>
> I used to be *so* jealous of my friends whose parents rewarded high
grades with
> cash! I got very nearly straight As in school (including AP courses,
no less)
> and my parents never gave me money for it.
>
Me too! I was jealous of my friends who recceived cash and prizes for
doing well in school. I was told that it was my job to get good grades,
and that was just what was expected of me. No reason to be rewarded...
only reprimanded if they weren't good enough.
geri....@abc.com
rob...@SoftHome.net (Robin) wrote:
>
> Now, the college of arts and sciences only requires 120 credits
instead
> of the 136, and they get to pick their classes! My roommate was a
> biology major, and had a handful of classes that she had to take
(maybe a
> year's worth) and the rest she got to pick from within the department.
> Sort of like an engineer having two years worth of tech electives!
Blows
> my mind.
Ack! Why didn't I go to VA Tech? I was a biology major (at Cornell) and
needed 140 credits to graduate -- 120 of which were requirements!
Geez...did I get a bad deal or what?
Robin
> Ack! Why didn't I go to VA Tech? I was a biology major (at Cornell) and
> needed 140 credits to graduate -- 120 of which were requirements!
>
> Geez...did I get a bad deal or what?
Sure did! ;-)
Here is Tech's biology requirements:
http://www.vt.edu/vt98/academics/ugcat/ucdBiol.html
It looks like there are only 72 hours of requirements!
--
There's no need to e-mail me a copy of a follow-up; but if you do,
please identify it as such.
c...@my-deja.com
"Wende A. Feller" <vybo...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> Actually :), it was Cherise who was arguing that it's necessary to
wait
> and plan for kids because newly married couples are barely scraping
by,
Actually, no, that wasn't my point at all. My point was that for *some*
people, waiting to have kids until their finances are in order is a
priority. I didn't say all newly married couples are barely scraping by,
nor did I imply it.
> My
main
> objection was to the generalization that having babies immediately is
> automatically financially irresponsible.
>
I never said it was. I stated that it was drilled into my head from day
one that it is irresponsible to choose to have children while
financially unable to support them. I still believe that, which is
*very* different from suggesting that *having* kids early in a marriage
is financially irresponsible. Having kids when you can't pay your rent
is not a good idea, IMO, but that's is nowhere near to suggesting that
all newly married couples can't pay their rent.
So, for the record, since my initial point was completely misunderstood,
the idea of "waiting for the right time" for some,including myself,
means being in a financial position they're comfortable with, which
sometimes requires waiting a few years after marriage before having
children.
Cherise
c...@my-deja.com
"Wende A. Feller" <vybo...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> Ah, but not all newly married couples are "barely making ends meet."
:)
> Being newly married
> doesn't *necessarily* mean being financially unready for parenthood.
>
I don't recall saying that....it's been a couple of weeks, maybe it
wasn't said clearly.
> Both Phil and I were raised by parents who were poor for most of our
> childhoods. Phil and all four of his siblings went to college;
obviously
> I went to college for an appalling number of years. I just don't see
the
> "cycle of poverty" at work here.
>
As did we, but I'm afraid I've witnessed all too frequently the cycle of
poverty. My family strived very hard to break it, and mostly did (my
niece is an exception, and has to do with step-family dynamics, tho as
I said she's doing ok now). However, my many cousins did not break this
cycle. Believe me, the cycle of poverty is *very* real, excruciatingly
so.
--
Cherise
direct email: roh...@nd.edu