Dear Editor:
After reading the article in the December 8th issue about faculty evaluations, I started to think about their value. I agree that evaluations are an important part of the college experience, but I do not see how the results are used to voice student opinions. I am so disheartened by the process of filling out student evaluations that I will never complete an evaluation again. I believe evaluations are a waste of time because student opinions are not taken into consideration.
I would like to state that this is not the rant of a student scorned, but rather, the concerns of a student that cares about his education. I do not base my evaluations on the grade I receive in a class, only the methodology and efficacy of the professor. I assure you that I am able to put aside trivial details and objectively rate my professors.
Sue Van Dyne says that evaluations are a way for students to constructively voice their opinions. I would like to know how students have a voice through these evaluations. I have been in class with professors that cannot teach effectively and made note of this on their evaluations. I have never seen how my comments are used, because ineffective professors that I have had are still teaching on campus. I know from conversations with other students from these classes that we all gave similar reports on the evaluation, and yet, ineffective professors still have jobs here at Northern. This truly perplexes me.
I do understand that professors can have a bad quarter, but I have had professors perform poorly for multiple courses. When a professor repeatedly fails to meet the needs of the students, he does not belong at a university of Ohio Northern’s caliber.
With my concerns voiced, I would like to be assured that student opinions matter. Until I am, I won’t feel guilt or remorse about deleting the e-mail reminders to fill out evaluations.
Luke Erford
-------------------
Dear Editor:
Washington recently passed new legislation that legalized physician-assisted suicide, making it and Oregon the only states with constitutional statutes legalizing assissted suicide. While most states explictly prohibit assissted stuicide, the Ohio constitution does not, and the state Supreme Court ruled that assissting a suicide is not a crime. Ohio needs to take its legal policy a step further and make the patient’s right to choose a constitutional right.
I?firmly believe that terminal patients should have the final say in their treatment. During my childhood, I?watched two loved ones suffer long after all hope of recovery was lost, and it left quite an impression on me. My step-grandfather battled leukemia for two years before passing away, and a few years lalter my step-grandmother lost her decade-long struggle with the respiratory disease, COPD. If I?am ever terminally ill, I?want the right to choose how long my family and I?must endure my suffering.
The Hippocratic Oath states, “I?will remember that... warmth, sympathy and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug,” and “It may also be in my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with a great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I?must not play at God.” For a terminal patient, there is little to no chance for recovery. If neither the physician nor the patient has a moral qualm regarding assissted suicide, there is no reason the patient should be denied the right to die in a humane and painless way.
What family member could say that she believes her loved one should have to suffer when he doesn’t want to? What doctor could deny his patient a painless end to their struggle? Leave the moral dilemma to the parties involved and each case and give Ohioans the right to choose.
Carlie Ellis
-------------------
Editor:
After reading the article entitled “Study finds educational TV not up to par” in the Dec. 8 issue, I?began to realize that children’s programming has gone amokin recent years.
As a senior here at Ohio Northern University, and as an electronic broadcasting and and communications major, I?have noticed a change in what kids watch in today’s society.
Although “Sesame Street” and “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” still air (although very rarely it seems like) kids are bombarded with newer, technologically advanced animated programming.
According to kidshealth.org, television programs have an immense effect on a child’s development:
— Kids under the age of 6 watch an average of  about 2 hours of screen media a day, pimraily TV and videos or DVDs.
— Kids and teens 8 to 18 years spend nearly 4 hours a day in front of a TV?screen and almost 2 additional hours on the computer (outside of schoolwork) and playing video games.
Where “Reading Rainbow” and “The Magic Schoolbus” used to air, new shows such as “Total Drama Island” and “Bakugan Battle Brawlers” now capture kids’ attention. These shows showcase “adult situations” filled with lust and/or violence.
Studies have shown that kids who view violent acts are more likely to show aggressive behavior.
For example, I?am an active runner for ONU and every time I set foot outisde my door to run, kids find it okay to yell rude and demeaning things. I?have had snowballs thrown at me and I?have heard kids scream inappropriate phrases towards female runners as well. I, along with the rest of the crew I?run with, would have never acted in such a way at a young age, not only due to fear of what the older individual may do, but because we were taught that type of behavior is unnacceptable.
It’s going to be our responsibility and the responsibility of parents to evaluate what is appropriate for kids to watch and make sure, as Matthew Foster stated in the article, that the programming is “something the average American child needs to become a healthy adult.”
Transforming Education,
Eric R. Porter