While I agree with many of the aforementioned points, I disagree with the general tone that the article had. I read it as less of a blistering social critique and more of a recitation of familiar points that are neither controversial nor truly thought provoking. Above all, the undertone that I often find in discussions of female objectification is a negative, prohibitive view of sex, which usually gets cast as fundamentally demeaning. That is why I am writing in defense of the human sexual urge and in defense of the often uncontrollable preferences that one finds in one’s self.

I agree with Cralley on one point—why isn’t there a wider array of people represented in the posters? I’m not necessarily calling for more variety in ethnicity—after all, attempts at tokenism can be offensive, and it would be bad to offend people in a misguided attempt at blanket “political correctness” —but why not have more men or any other gender presentation on the posters?

After all, one of the headliner events of Sex Week was Anal Pleasure 101, and I would delicately like to point out that the anus is a body part shared by both genders. Targeting half of a potential demographic is just more effective. Are we afraid that by putting a man on the poster we’ll be accused of gay stereotyping? I think that that attitude—a lip service to political correctness but an unwillingness to do anything that might be perceived as controversial­—is more harmful than misguided but sincere advertising.

In response to another of Cralley’s points and in response to the larger discourse about sexual objectification, I think that sexual objectification is more complicated than the amount of skin shown or the model’s body type (however large the bosoms). It is one of those gray areas where a strictly utilitarian outlook doesn’t hold, because the motivations of the model do change the nature of the act. As for the ubiquity of a certain type of sexual image (female, white, lithe, well endowed), I think it is evidence of a lack of sexual imagination more than anything else. This is not the evil that we sometimes make it out to be, only the evil of banality and unbalance. I do not think that by attempting to curb all sexual images we will ever change that perception of “normal” sexuality.

After all, if our Sex Week promoters really can’t think of sexier images than hot white girls, then we should probably just be disappointed with our Sex Week promoters, not society at large. Why not write to let them know that the posters they made were far too vanilla for our diverse (and perverse) tastes? That’s what I’d do. I mean, I won’t be happy until they host an event entirely about *censored*.

Finally, I would like to highlight the ubiquity throughout time and cultures of pornography and sexual imagery. It is a valid point that we are probably more fixated on it than previous cultures, given our mass media and consumer culture. We have to ask ourselves, if we have a problem with it, what precisely is the nature of our problem? Are we upset by the sheer display of sexuality and our desire to see it, or are we upset when we feel that such a display is being manipulated or viewpoints aren’t represented fairly? I think that making these distinctions in critiques lends more precision, and, in my view, gives a much more charitable place for sexual desire in our psychology.

Ann is a junior in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at aejohnson@wustl.edu.

It is safe to say that caffeine addiction affects college students disproportionately. It makes sense, due to the cocktail of stress hormones that exams, papers and quizzes help create. And, as with any legal addiction, addicts become a target market.

It always seemed strange to me that what seemed like so much caffeine could be sold without any sort of test. I’m thinking specifically of 5 Hour Energy Shots, Nos Power Shots, and the like. As a consumer in the United States, I’ve grown accustomed to corporations anticipating and thwarting every stupid instinct I may have so they can’t be sued. I can’t even spill coffee on myself without being told not to. It seems so inconsistent that the market oscillates between acting as though I have no common sense and then leaving me to rely solely on it. In my mind, power shots fall under this category.

I recently discovered that our campus bookstore sells something called Energy Spray. It comes in a nice, shiny package that is easily seen by the sleep-deprived.

The idea is that you give yourself three to four sprays and then let the caffeine soak in directly through your sensitive mouth skin. It begins to work in 30 seconds. It is powerful enough that you should not use more than 10 sprays every 4 hours. Does that not seem excessive in some way?

After discovering Energy Spray, I was both elated and concerned. Elated, because I had to write a paper and complete a take-home exam in the space of 36 hours, and obviously, this was my savior. My concern was a little more complicated.

As with any addiction, caffeine becomes a quick fix—something to use after already making a mistake. For me, that mistake is acting like staying up and working consecutive hours like a madwoman is a viable option as a normal operating procedure. As the products available to me get stronger, I’m going to be more and more able to rely on them instead of addressing the real issues of focus and planning that lie behind most of my all-nighters. As the caffeine market develops, there will be more potent substances for me to use as crutches.

I certainly am not against the sale of such products. There is nothing I find more irritating than the rhetoric of the Nanny State—that I need to have my options restricted because I am not capable of making proper choices for myself. This is the idea that my choices should be restricted “for my own good.” I am perfectly able to make my own bad decisions. I just think that there is an unnecessary shroud of mystery over how bad energy products actually are for you.

I think that caffeine addiction and reliance is so widespread that maybe there should be some form of education about it. I don’t think that gathering freshmen together and lecturing them about getting things done on time will change anyone’s behavioral patterns. But what about providing accurate and reliable information about a substance that most of us ingest daily without thinking about it? I know that there are a few student groups that focus on health, and sleep deprivation and caffeine addiction seem like two very large health concerns to which we are especially vulnerable. Even flyers with basic facts and information, presented without a pro or con slant, would be valuable.

With most people, common sense sends up some red flags when it comes to the more concentrated “energy” shots. Most people recognize it as an option that is nice to have, but one that shouldn’t be the chosen method of controlling wakefulness. But as with any free market, there is a certain amount of self-policing that has to happen—and it would be wonderful to know a little bit more about what I’m putting in my body.

Ann is a junior in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at aejohnson@wustl.edu.

As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. While we aren’t running out of money yet, why not try to gain back some of our losses? In my opinion, a perfect way to do this can be described in two words: alternate vending. Why limit our vending machine options to food and drink? We can charge the consumer for the availability of certain items in specialized locations. The campus bookstore has been capitalizing on this principle for years.

(Godiva Reisenbichler | Student Life)

This proposal probably sounds eccentric, but compared to the proliferation of vending machines in other cultures we look quite uncreative. In Japan, the motherland of the cultural quirk, vending machines exist for flowers, kerosene, batteries, cameras, fried foods, phone chargers, beer and liquor, and even used panties that have been worn by schoolgirls. If you don’t believe me, look it up on the Internet.  Surely we can think of something besides Coke and M&Ms to sell.

Ideas that I think would be useful could be Visine tears in Whispers, cheap rain ponchos in various locations, Sharpies and X-Acto knife refill blades at the art school, miniature staplers, hair ties, small flashlights, Band-Aids for those days when you just had to wear uncomfortable shoes, cheap sunglasses, sunscreen and maybe some Advil or Tylenol (again, those would probably sell the most in Whispers).

Setting up vending machines, while having a high start-up cost, has a very low maintenance cost and would probably turn a profit in the end—not to mention the increased availability of small but useful items for students. Also, with the universality of the campus card and the “free money” mindset it evokes, higher-priced items would have a good chance of selling well.

One of the problems with this unorthodox proposal would be aesthetics. Vending machines aren’t the most beautiful things in the world—their hulking masses of metal and coils manage to look both shabby and sterile at the same time. However, the school that gave us the artistically-sculpted fake fire pit in the DUC Courtyard could probably find a way to class up a vending machine if need be. Another problem is that it seems like Coke machines and your standard candy dispensers have already snatched up all of the prime vending-machine realty. But again, it’s not that big of a problem; I think once we realize space could be money, we would find a lot more of it.

Alternate vending: an unusual idea? Yes. Seemingly out of the blue? Maybe. But why not? At its core, it’s nothing more than the idea of giving us, the consumers, what we need in a more convenient way. Imagine being in Whispers at three in the morning and being able to buy eye drops for the dry contacts that come out every time you blink, and then being able to buy ibuprofen for the raging, caffeine-fueled headache you have. Or being in Seigle Hall, which is an island unto itself, and being able to buy Band-Aids for your awful blisters without having to walk all the way to the bookstore. As far as a cheap and easily sustainable way of making money, expanding vending choices certainly makes sense to me.

Ann is a junior in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at aejohnson@gmail.com.

I recently moved off campus to a block north of the Loop, which is considered to be a dangerous, poor neighborhood. It has been one of the more eye-opening things I’ve experienced. After only four months, my perception of it changed from a crime-ridden, imposing menace to what I’m learning more about every week—a fairly average neighborhood, full of lots of families and with excellent parks.
The preconceptions we have that aren’t always challenged are the ones that are especially important to examine. For instance, everyone complains about the “Wash. U. bubble,” but it doesn’t seem to me like anyone ever gets very far in dissecting this elusive problem. Could it be we’re approaching it wrong?

I won’t use the imagery of a Wash. U. bubble anymore, because I personally think that the metaphor has become clichéd to the point of meaninglessness.  Instead of talking about this abstract idea that we can’t quite pin down, why not take it apart further?  What do people mean when they talk about a bubble?  It means people aren’t going off campus, aren’t interacting with the neighborhood.  So that pins it down a little—why aren’t people going off campus? Why aren’t they interacting with the neighborhood?

I honestly believe that, for 90 percent of people, the answer is simple—the drinking age, unfortunately, is 21 in that killjoy dimension of reality that is St. Louis minus Wash. U.  And also, we are busy, either working or pretending to work. We have our own communities within Wash. U. I completely understand. Trust me.

However, I think that even beyond those very valid reasons, there is hesitancy that deserves to be examined. Think about this: The Schnucks on Olive, which is clean, well stocked, orderly, well-lit and down the street from a swimming pool, tennis courts and a bike trail, is colloquially called “Ghetto Schnucks.” Why? The store isn’t as big as the one in Clayton, the food is cheaper, the store is older, and it has a different clientele than what a lot of students are used to. Are these good reasons for being dismissive?

Moving into the area and using primarily Olive Schnucks for my shopping made me re-evaluate the validity of that label. It was an excellent, albeit possibly painful, way of actually challenging myself to rethink the way I see people and places. At the same time, I became more self-aware about my attitudes, some of which are subconscious. I was surprised at how radically my views changed and at how many prejudices were narrowing my options without my being aware of it.

No, University City is not 100 percent safe, but then again, you can’t always have WUPD looming over your shoulders on Segways. Besides, I’m not trying to paint it into a utopia of bliss. It is a very real area and a very foreign one to most of us. It doesn’t always fit into what we are comfortable dealing with.

It’s worth remembering that different ways of life don’t always come packaged nicely into festivals where we can gorge ourselves on ethnic food. There is economic diversity as well as cultural diversity. Yet if one deserves respect and understanding, then the other does too. So, go back to ghetto Schnucks—you know, the one some of you only use to buy alcohol because it’s cheaper and you assume that they’ll go easier on your fake, because they’re somehow sketchier—and maybe notice something else about it, such as its utter normalcy.

Some online courses, or “distance learning,” is part of a growing trend of open-source knowledge—the philosophy that knowledge should be available to the greatest number of people possible, at no cost. This philosophy has spread rapidly since the ready availability of the Internet.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, offers virtually all of its coursework online for free, in an attempt to increase knowledge worldwide.

Many online courses, however, offer degrees and charge tuition like a normal college. Degrees are offered in nearly every topic, from health administration to business administration, through an online course offered by the University of Phoenix.

Washington University does not offer any online courses—a rule unlikely to change—and no student may have online course credits count toward his or her diploma. However, University College does offer a selection of online courses, which University students may take.

The University of Phoenix, conversely, offers programs of varying intensity, all the way up to online doctorate degrees in varying fields. However, some universities closer to home are also offering online courses; for instance, Fontbonne University offers online programs for a Master of Science in Computer Education and a Graduate Certificate in Computer Education.

Dirk Killen, associate dean of Arts & Sciences, said that he often advised students not to take online courses, because the credits cannot count toward a University degree.

“Most instructors feel there’s a place for Internet learning, and it can enhance learning, but classroom interaction is also valuable and can’t be replaced by online learning—not just the teacher-student relationship, but also the student-student relationship,” Killen said. “Most instructors are not negative about online learning, they just don’t feel it should be a substitute.”

In addition, though the University does not have any online courses, many courses have online elements. In language courses, supplemental work is often done online.

Another web supplement familiar to University students is WeBWorK, the online assignments given by the mathematics department. WeBWorK is an online hub of weekly assignments for students, which are graded instantaneously and can oftentimes be tried as many times as needed until the student gets the correct answer.

Students’ feelings toward WeBWorK are mixed.

“I think its good for seeing where the class is, and keeping track of what materials you need to know, but I think the interface is kind of [inefficient],” sophomore Alex Bensick said.

“My problem with it is that you can get instant feedback, but the feedback is ‘it’s right’ or ‘it’s wrong,’” he added. “It doesn’t give you detailed feedback about what you need to work on. It’s fine for the most part, but for something really confusing it’s not adequate.”

Lynne Breakstone, senior lecturer for French, incorporates the online workbook program Quia into her curriculum.  For her, the online programming was a selling point when she chose her books.  On the online workbook, students do fill-in-the-blank exercises and receive immediate feedback.

“It works because getting feedback isn’t dependent on another person. A student could do the work at three in the morning and get feedback,” Breakstone said.

However, Breakstone acknowledged the limitations of online coursework. Academic integrity is a significant concern regarding online coursework, but for language coursework, the ultimate test is fluency in the classroom.

“Language learning is very communication-based. Communication is much more than words and sounds—it’s the face, the body language. Most of language teaching cannot be done online,” Breakstone said. “I don’t think any course should be 100  percent online, but if the mechanical part is online, it is more efficient.”

She also stressed the importance of student-to-student relationships.

“They make learning more interesting, and more personal,” Breakstone said.

Students should expect to see more editions and cheaper used textbooks filling these shelves as a new textbook law takes effect.

In response to growing concerns about high textbook prices, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt passed a bill that will require textbook manufacturers to be more transparent in their pricing.

The bill, passed on Jun. 25, goes into effect on Aug. 28 and will force textbook manufacturers to publish precisely what information has been changed between revisions of textbooks. This information will allow professors to request students to buy the newest editions only when necessary, increasing students’ options for used books.

The Associated Students of the University of Missouri (ASUM) helped to pass the legislation, which was sponsored by State Rep. Jake Zimmerman (D-Olivette).

“Textbook costs can be outrageous. Professors will now hopefully be able to choose the older or less expensive editions if content is similar,” Craig Stevenson, the former legislative director of ASUM, said.

The bill also allows students to direct financial aid toward buying books.

In 2004, professors and students signed a nationwide petition in an attempt to lower the prices of Thomson Learning’s textbooks.

Washington University students often feel the sting of these high prices. One microeconomics textbook costs $200, and for organic chemistry students, a new textbook can set them back $228.

Many students feel frustrated by the costs.

“I paid [a lot] for my textbooks this semester,” sophomore Jovana Husic said. “That’s ridiculous. Also, I have a new edition of a textbook I bought last semester that I couldn’t sell back to the bookstore, because when I went to sell it back to them, they told me that they already had enough used copies of it.”

Junior Mark Dudley had a similar experience with the buy back program, which is intended to help ease textbook costs for students.

“When I tried to sell back my math textbook, the bookstore said they would give me five dollars,” he said. “I waited a semester [and] then was able to sell it for 40. It’s all based on supply and demand.”

The situation of textbook prices has gone on since 2004, when the California Public Interest Group (CALPIRG) published a study called “Ripoff 101: How the Current Practices of the Publishing Industry Drive up the Costs of College Textbooks,” an extensive survey of textbook prices in West Coast schools.

In a study released in 2005 called “Ripoff 101: 2nd Edition,” the Public Interest Group asserts that the study “uncovered more evidence that textbook prices are a significant part of college costs, that textbook prices are rising at a fast pace and that publishers use a variety of tactics to inflate the cost of textbooks.”

“In addition, we found that textbook publishers increase textbook prices faster than the rate of inflation between editions and charge American students more for the same books than students in other countries.”

One of the tactics that CALPIRG referred to is the release of new editions without substantially changing the information. When the new bill takes effect, professors will be able to better decide if students need to buy a new edition, or if the old one is sufficient.

CALPIRG’s study sparked an investigation into textbook manufacturing by the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO). In July 2005, GAO found that textbook prices had tripled from 1986 to 2004, increasing faster than tuition and above the inflation rate.

The GAO found, however, that the rising costs of textbooks were somewhat mitigated by the enhanced offerings of new textbooks, especially regarding new technology that supplemented the textbooks’ content.

An example of these technological applications in University courses is Quia, an online workbook used by French students. Quia allows teachers to assign self-grading assignments, which gives students immediate feedback. The price of a French textbook, which comes bundled with Quia, is $152, and cannot be bought used.