"Gamechangers" vs. gamechangers

Last week my class had to listen to another sermon from one of my professors. He praised all those who were devoted to his subject like some damn religion and said those who weren't taking his subject seriously would just end up as another statistic in the unemployed counter. I would not mind this if it wasn't for two things. One is that his subject is not even our major. The professor knows this and yet he shoves his subject down our throats as if we really needed it. He clearly doesn't know his place. He also advocates what a CNN article wrote as "conformity rather than independence, competition rather than collaboration, regurgitation rather than learning and theory rather than application." But that is not the main point of this blog post.

Remember those students I told you who were being praised? Clearly the professor does not know who is he talking about. Those so called future gamechangers as he called them are anything but gamechangers. They are people who hide under poker faces to mask the fact that they are nothing more than mere cheaters. I'm pissed at this. I'm better than they are. Yet thanks to their dishonest ways, they have outclassed me. Even if you discount the fact that they are cheaters, they don't act the part of gamechangers. They act like little kids, all immature and all. They know all about local soap opera shit and yet have no clue who David Cameron is. While me and my friends talk about the political consequences of the Libyan Civil War, they talk about gossip. I speak about new ways to reform my school's handling of policies and they speak of the latest episode of Big Brother. Are these what you call gamechangers? If so, then the world is doomed...metaphorically speaking of course. But this is unlikely to be the case. Based on history, its improbable such people to displace those who have a real chance to be gamechangers. To make things more interesting, our professor is going recommend these so called gamechangers to big time companies. I can't wait to see the look on my professor's face when he realizes that these visionaries of his are all smoke and mirrors.

The trouble with school policies

Last Monday (August 1, 2011), my school officially enforced an edict that said "No playing of video games in the library." Now while this sounds fine and all at first glance, the problem is that playing of video games was allowed before our library. Students who were playing video games played only in the discussion area of the library (the part where there are no books at all and is rarely air conditioned). In fact, before this policy was enforced teachers and staff would even watch us play and they didn't gave us infractions or the like. So when I first heard about this, I asked myself "Why only now?" If they didn't want students to play inside the library they should have enforced this rule a long time ago (like before I even entered college). They did not. This new rule also means that students can't play video games on their own devices. To make things worse, they did not even gave a rationale behind this decision. It's as if they woke up one morning and said "Time to take away another one of our students privileges."

This event highlights a problem with my school - rules apparently are passed whenever the school authorities please. Any kind of rules, including ones with no apparent logical explanation. Such a fact goes against the notion that school is a second home for its students. Sure at home rules are made by parents, but of course any caring parent would have given the kids a chance to explain themselves. In this case, we students were not even given such a privilege. They just enforced a rule without hearing our side of the bargain...and without us even hearing their side as well. This makes school less of a second home and more of a prison. If this goes on with my school with whatever future rules, relations will just sour between students and the school authorities. If you ask me, before any rule is enforced in the school, students concerned should be given the opportunity to say their opinions and what ever constructive criticism they have. What I'm suggesting is that there should be referendums with regards to any new policies the school authorities want to implement. That way, there can be a compromise between both parties...the best of both worlds. I feel there is something wrong about my school's way of operating things, and I want change...but not by using insidious, dishonest, monetary, or violent methods. If referendums for school policies do happen (or something like it), it will show that the school authorities are not despotic tyrants as some say but caring surrogate parents.