Beloit's Mindset List

Every year for the past 11 years, Beloit college has released a list that, in words of its authors, "provides a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college."

Here's the beginning of this years list:

1. Harry Potter could be a classmate, playing on their Quidditch team.
2. Since they were in diapers, karaoke machines have been annoying people at parties.
3. They have always been looking for Carmen Sandiego.
4. GPS satellite navigation systems have always been available.
5. Coke and Pepsi have always used recycled plastic bottles.
6. Shampoo and conditioner have always been available in the same bottle.
7. Gas stations have never fixed flats, but most serve cappuccino.
8. Their parents may have dropped them in shock when they heard George Bush announce “tax revenue increases.”
9. Electronic filing of tax returns has always been an option.
10. (Click here to see the rest of the list)

Of course I get the usual chuckle when I see this. It is funny to be reminded that events that are so clear in my memory that they could have happened yesterday were never part of the cultural landscape of our incoming students. It is fun to be reminded about life circa 1990 when I was already an adult.

Something has always bothered me about the list, though. For starters, the list is more about us teachers than the students since the cultural markers it references are mostly for adults (i.e., Martha Stewart). Secondly, the list is mostly about pop culture, which is fine and sometimes extremely important, but it limits the scope of what the authors mean when they say "Mindset List." Does knowing who Rosanne Barr is determine one's mindset? Somewhat perhaps, but to me it would be much more interesting to say that these children probably didn't benefit from welfare because Bill Clinton "ended Welfare as we know it." It would be more interesting and revealing to say that these children have only known Defense budgets that increased and education budgets that mostly decreased. It would be more telling to note that today's youth are more likely to have grown up poor than their parents. You get my drift, right?

Finally, look at the list. It is really from a White middle-class perspective. That does not come close to representing the ever more diverse U.S.

Yes, I know, my "list" would a bit heavy, but there could be some good things to it too: Today's students have always known an openly gay character on TV. Today's students are not scared by terms like "cold war" (just GWOT!).

My point is that if we're going to talk about mindsets, let's talk about the institutions and structures that have as deep or deeper connection to the existences of everyone rather than sticking to the cultural references like TV and shampoo. Let's also try to make our list a little more culturally informed with references to people other than, say, Martha Stewart.

Maybe I should make my own list. Hmmm.

Nah. I'll just be a curmudgeon.

A blogger to encourage

I was browsing the internets the other day and stumbled upon a student's blog. (I was searching for something I had written. Mirror, mirror on the blogs...)

Check it out:

I've distracted myself in this two-thirds sleepy, dark room with "news" of the Speedo LZR Racer controversy, American and Delta's decrepit plane technology, Basra Shiite scariness, whatever Private Investment in Public Equity solicitation is, and another Laker "technical difficulty" loss. I really don't see the point in straying from the Lakers blog whenever Jon Abrams feels it necessary to test his wit this early on a Thursday. Phil Jackson diatribes after losses are always refreshing after losing so lamely to freaking Charlotte Bobcats.

The Home section actually reminded me that I live in LA, where credit it given solely to those of whom are overpopulating the bumps and beaches of Malibu. ie The Arnoldi's.

Friends of Gehry's, aluminum fiends, who employ lonely succulents to serve as backyard sculpture, rather than subliminally emphasizing why xeriscaping is key in such flambable lands. People who are speaking of their artistry too loudly in this economy, rather than letting the three pages of photography do the talking.

You've probably already noticed some good writing and sly insights. Go Tyler.

The Politics of Language Learning

To be sure, in our lower-level language courses there is lots of communication and interaction going on, but how good are we, at these levels, at providing students with rich and multimodal contexts of language use? How good are we at creating communities of practice, the kinds of "temporarily shared social worlds" that create mutuality as well as provide affordances for learning? How good are we at engaging students' ongoing negotiations of their social identities? (Walther, Ingebord. "Ecological Perspectives on Language Learning." ADFL Bulletin, Vol 38.3 and Vol. 39.1, Spring-Fall 2007.)

I've been struggling with this a lot and wondering, as does Walther, about our textbooks, our language curricula, and, more generally, the notion of global education in the liberal arts. I highly recommend the article for its consideration of communities of practice in language classrooms and within the larger social context, including the politics (academic and national) that shape perceptions of languages.

I believe wholeheartedly that the skills one acquires while learning a language must go beyond communication, a fairly a-political notion of human interaction, and quickly introduce students to higher-level processes for organizing their experiences and the world. Certainly the communicative model allows for the introduction of individual experiences and multiple perspectives, but his alone is not enough. Textbooks and our general methods of teaching should allow space for addressing the larger questions raised by linguistic and social diversity. Class, race, gender and power rarely make it into our 100-level or 200-level courses, and this is a shame, for it contributes to the notion that language is a secondary tool and that language courses are merely grammar and multi-cultural tourism. (Of course, we are imperfect, and some of what we do fits this superficial stereotype.)

In a primarily mono-lingual culture such as we have in the U.S., students already realize, however faintly, that the very act of learning another (an Other's) language is political. Such an act, especially when it comes from personal agency rather than as a curricular requirement to be fulfilled, questions monolithic constructions of identity, family and nation. By acknowledging the inherent politics of our profession we can begin to construct a more solid framework of theories to share with out students, and by doing this we can capture the energy of inquiry and participation embedded in socially constructed knowledge. It dawns on me, though, that many of my colleagues would resist such a politics of language learning even as they would acknowledge its presence. The reason for this, I think, is such paradigm changes bring risk to departments institutionally as language departments begin to function more like a social science or as an engaged member of the humanities. Also, such paradigms will no doubt bring teachers to question their own assumptions about themselves, about their social class and the meaning of what they do.

We should do better, and we should start by asking more of our textbooks and ourselves.

[more to come]