I was nostalgic for the good ol' j1 reporting days so here's my 'Big Story' on transfer students at USF

Inside the Mind of a Transfer Student

Jared Frazer recalls his freshman year at San Francisco State. He did not get along with his roommate, he was in overcrowded classes, and he was forced to take elective classes that he didn’t want because all the classes he wanted were already full. Since then he has bounced around to three other colleges, including The New York Film Academy and Santa Monica Community College. Now, six years later, Frazier, a 24-year-old media studies major, says he has finally found a home at USF. As opposed to his other schools, Frazer says he loves the quiet community, the small college and the intimate classroom setting.

Every year, students transfer to USF. They might have finished their general education at a community college and are ready to make the transition into a four-year university, or they may be switching colleges because it wasn’t quite the right fit for them. 

Out of the six transfer students interviewed, USF’s location and small class sizes were among the most common reasons transfer students chose to come to USF.

Melissa Baron, a transfer student from Northeastern University in Boston says, “I knew I wanted a school in the city. More importantly, I knew I wanted a small school in a big city.” She says she liked the fact that USF had all the advantages of the small school setting, but was in the big city, where everything was at her fingertips. She was very excited about the fact that she could “explore things outside of USF.”

However, even though the campus is in the heart of San Francisco and the college is relatively small, “transfer students feel left out,” says Alexandra Platt, ASUSF Senate President.

“Although we do a special transfer orientation, it’s not at the same scale with the Freshman Orientation” says Platt, “starting out as a Freshman, you come into the college experience with 1000 other people in the same place; all learning the same things about the school and getting into the groove at the same time. For transfer students, they don’t get a chance to go through that learning curve with their class.”

Terry Leigh, a transfer student from Marymount College, feels that USF didn’t make a great effort to make new transfer students feel welcomed. Leigh, 20, says, “The community wasn’t that welcoming. It [was] rough coming in as a transfer student, especially [living] off-campus.”

Christina Hammill, a transfer student from De Anza College, agrees. Hammill, 21, lives in the Pedro Arupe resident halls off-campus and says “Pedro Arupe is not very transfer friendly. The people are all nice but it’s very cliquey and not like the freshman dorms where everyone wants to make new friends.” However, Hammill admits that there is really nothing USF can do to fix this problem. “Pedro Arupe did offer one dinner specifically for transfer students, but I was in class.”

Jared Frazer also lives off-campus but feels differently. “The transfer orientation was very helpful in helping me get a feel for the school.” He said he liked the fact “the it [made] [him] feel comfortable in the presence of USF… it was nice to feel included in activities that were apart of USF.” When told how his opinions greatly differed from his fellow transfer students, he had no sympathy; he said that first and foremost, “college is about doing things for yourself.”

As part of the ASUSF Senate, Jo Wieneck, a transfer student from community college in Santa Cruz, wants the school to take more initiative welcoming transfer students. Wieneck, a 20-year-old business major, is trying to add a new position to the Senate, where someone would be named the “Transfer Representative” for the school.

She also has plans in the works for a mentor program specifically for transfer students, where they would be able to talk to a fellow student if they had any questions about the school.  

Aside from the problems transfer students had integrating into the USF community, another problem has lingered for transfers and non-transfers alike. Many students on campus feel there is a severe shortage of school spirit.

Wieneck says she wants “for people to be excited to be at USF.” However, she says that the total lack of school spirit within the student body deters students from getting involved.

Wieneck says that students just don’t care about representing their school; “when you talk to students about our school, it tends to be more negative than positive.”

She says one reason for this is because of how spread out the campus is. She also says that there are no incentive for students who live off-campus to come to main campus to participate because there are never enough activities happening to make it worth their while.

Charles Skinner, a transfer student counselor and the admissions coordinator for USF, says that USF is appealing to transfer students because of the small classes sizes and fact that every class is taught by a “real professor” and not a grad student, as is the case in many UC and CSU classes.

According to Skinner, the process for transferring to USF is a “fairly easy process.” He says that USF requires students trying to transfer in to have completed at least 24 semester credits or 36-quarter credits completed at a separate college and to have maintained a 2.75 GPA during that time.

Skinner says that USF’s process for transfer students is much more flexible than other California State Universities (CSU) or UC’s, and that the transfer staff is very accessible to potential students if they have questions.

And it shows too. Looking at the statistics from last year, over sixty percent of transfer students who applied were accepted, which is comparable to the sixty-six percent of freshman admitted, according to U-Can, a university and college accountability network on the web.  

As opposed to other CSU’s and UC’s, Skinner says that many of the classes transfer students take at other colleges count for same general education or major courses at USF. 

But, Melissa Baron disagrees with Skinner. “The university makes it difficult to fill requirements with transferred courses. They have very specific ideas of what a class syllabus must contain to fill a university requirement.” She says as a result, “I’ve had to retake classes like college writing. This makes it very difficult to graduate on time.”

One of the classes Baron is talking about is Writing 250, which is a requirement for all transfer students. Frazer, sums up the general attitude transfer students have towards having to take 250 when he says that he “doesn’t mind taking it, but it has set [him] back in my [major].”

For Melissa Baron, it was what USF offered in terms of education that drew her attention. She says she applied to USF because they “promised small class sizes and intimate education. It’s very important to me to be in small programs where I can develop relationships with professors.”

Another aspect that Baron liked was the richness of the Media Studies department. “I liked that the program covered a variety of ways to look at media- theory, criticism, research, and creation,” she says. “I also wanted to be in the program because instead of creating separate programs for film and journalism, [USF] puts all the programs together allowing students to pick and choose their skill set.”

Baron says she felt too constrained in her major at Northeastern and felt “the major was too specific and didn’t allow me to develop a wide array of skills for the job market.”  She says that after she graduates from USF, she is confident that she will be prepared to find a job in the media field.

The Media Studies department was a dealmaker for Christina Hammill. She says” [USF] is one of the few schools that offers Media Studies as a major instead of just Communications, which is too broad and vague than what I want.”

Most students say they have had much better experiences with their professors here at USF than their previous colleges. Baron has nothing but praises for the professors in the Media Studies Department, “The Media Studies professors have a wealth of knowledge and resources that they make available to students. They teach engaging and difficult classes. My professors have made themselves available to me for help and their classes have actually challenged me; a first in my college experience.”

Baron has particularly liked Professor David Silver in the Media Studies Department. She says that he taught his Introduction to Media Studies “in a way that got you really excited about media and the different individual interests you can pursue in media.”

On the other hand, Baron said she’s “had mixed feelings about [the] professors for the [general education] classes. Some have been great and others have not.”

Brandon Martinez, a transfer student from USC, agrees that it can be hit or miss with many of the teachers. But he says some of the courses are a “joke. It’s too easy.” He feels that some teachers “spoon feed the students… and make it a little too easy to skate through USF.”

Contrasting Baron, Martinez says, “I don’t think USF has given me the same education that USC did. USF hasn’t challenged me so far and I only have one semester left.” Yet, Martinez made it clear that he was only at USF to finish up his remaining units and graduate; he wasn’t interested in the political aspect of the school.

However, Baron doesn’t feel that the professors are solely at fault. Nonetheless, she does agree that courses outside her major do not measure up. She says, “I’m unsatisfied with the classroom experience. I often feel my classmates don’t feel compelled to do the work and it detracts from classroom discussion.”

Despite all of the negative things said about USF, all of the transfer students mentioned that they plan on staying and graduating from USF. Christina Hammill knows USF is the place she wants to be, “being a transfer [student] is pretty hard, academically and socially, but it’s completely worth the troubles to be a school you enjoy.” She says “when you transfer, you start out behind and there’s a lot of work to catch up. But it’s better than stewing in a college you don’t like.”

Jared Frazer believes that coming to USF was the best possible choice he could have made. He says “I admire the commitment to excellence the faculty and school exhibits, [which] makes me want to mirror that excellence in my work so I can adequately represent USF in the future.”

Dust

USF is not known to put on big theatre arts productions. Nor are the plays known to be well received by the college student body. Sufficient to say, USF’s track record has been very hit or miss. Last year’s production of Necromancers and last semester’s Woyzeck left something to be desired (both plays were too experimental to the point where the characters were undeveloped and the plot was nonsensical), while last month’s Vagina Monologues was very popular, especially among the women. Last weekend brought the new and experimental play Dust, written entirely by the cast and crew. What would be the verdict?

            Dust derives their plot from the bible of the story of Adam and Eve. From a biblical standpoint, Dust doesn’t do it justice, as God does not have an overbearing role in the play. However, they were still able to portray of sin, but in other ways. The play is divided up into eleven different skits, where each skit gives a potential reason why Eve took a bite from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the bible version of Adam and Eve, Eve bites the apple out of temptation. Conversely in Dust, they aren’t satisfied with the simplicity of temptation and thus believe that there could have been different/more motives behind Eve’s defiant act towards God.

            The first half of the play is set in various classrooms (incorporating third graders through college students), acting as the metaphorical Garden of Eden. In the six different classroom skits, passion, fame, love, fear, pride and free will are given as reasons why Eve bit from the apple.

            The play transitions when the ensemble rips apart the set, removing the overhead light fixtures, chairs, chalkboard, poster and carpet. Throughout the classroom skits, the lighting is bright, creating an amiable setting. After the removal of the classroom objects, the mood changes from light and upbeat to dark and desolate. The second half of the show takes place in this black setting, utilizing shadows, lighters, and the supernatural.

            Although presented on a small stage, the ensemble was able to make great use of the limited space they were given. There were 4 holes in the stage, and actors would periodically appear and disappear through them, adding more depth and possibly to the seemingly bland stage. The ensemble was also faced with the challenge of having to face 3 different areas where the audience was seated. However, the blocking was arranged beautifully, to the point that no part of the audience was ever being neglected.

            The most impressive aspect of the show was that there was no script to work from. Instead, the actors used structured improvisation throughout the performance; the same ideas were used during each show and the wording only changed slightly from night to night.  I also enjoyed the play on words and puns that were sprinkled in throughout the play. My favorite line was when Eve was talking about her life after Eden and said she was a “God damned, God forsaken mother.”

            After going to see Dust opening night and then again on closing night, I was impressed by the actors’ ability to keep up their energy throughout the entire show. It was clear that they were having fun on-stage. On closing night, I noticed that the actors’ were a lot more comfortable on-stage because they had far more off-the-cuff quips and side comments than they did on opening night.

            One closing night, the show was sold out. It was obvious that the crowd had enjoyed it and told their friends. People were even sitting in the aisle because no seats were left; clearly Dust was a hit.

 

 4.5/5 apples

 

Documentary Review

 

            Taxi to the Dark Side (2007), written and directed by Alex Gibney, presents a somber and dark look at the cruel and unusual punishment prisoners were subjected to while being held in captivity by the United States in the Bagram Air Base, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay in 2003-2004. This academy award-winning documentary includes interviews with some of the soldiers (who didn’t ‘know any better’), as well as their lawyers, and also, according to Gibney, a look at the Bush Administration’s gross incompetence while trying to handle these situations.

            The documentary begins by focusing on an Afghan taxi driver, named Dilawar. While he was working, he was arrested with the three passengers in his taxi on suspicion of being behind a terrorist attack on a nearby American base. Only five days after he was arrested he was found dead in his cell. The cause? Beatings he received while being interrogated by U.S. soldiers. His story segues into an examination of the sadistic and abusive treatment prisoners received while in captivity at Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Gibney breaks his documentary up into different segments that focus on specific details pertaining to the interrogation techniques used and allowed, consequent deaths, and the soldiers involved. 

            Gibney uses interviews with soldiers who took part in these events, photographs from the different bases and archival footage to tell his story. He has the soldiers explain, from their perspective, what happened and why. I thought it was a strange but interesting technique that he used the soldiers, who were accused of the inhumane treatment, to explain the events and give the audience some understanding that they are not the only ones at fault. It is obvious to the viewers that the soldiers feel remorse and guilt from their actions. However, it was off-putting that some of the soldiers tried to make excuses for what happened by saying that they were under pressure to such indecency.           

            To take it one step further, I think it would be impossible to try to convince anyone that what those soldiers did was not outright wrong. Gibney keeps true to the role of the documentary in that he is able to tell his story without forcing his views onto the audience. He lets the story speak for itself.

            Although the images shown of the camps and testimony given by the soldiers is grave and all together horrendous, Gibney still manages to add at least one amusing element: the Bush Administration. The way they acted during these incidents is just funny in a very sad way. For example, Gibney uses Donald Rumsfeld to prove his point. He shows an instance where Rumsfeld had signed off on an interrogation methods memo and at the bottom he left a note. He comments on the interrogation technique to force the person in question to stand for four hours straight. In this note he says that he stands for eight hours a day behind his desk, implying that four hours is something to wave your feather at. Twisted, I thought. Gibney is able to use these facts effectively to convince even the most conservative viewer that these incidents could have been handled in a more sensitive way.

            Gibney also uses a series of cuts to portray the government, Bush in particular, as either completely incompetent or just simply ignoring the situation facing them. This is a technique often used by filmmakers and the news networks- to create a certain image or representation of a person by using clips out of context. Gibney, and so many other filmmakers and broadcasters have done does this, portraying the Bush Administration as a bunch of bungling idiots (i.e. ALL of Michael Moore’s films, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, etc.) that I’m beginning to think that you could take anything they did during his presidency and make it look like an event that they lacked the necessary skill to carry it out properly. 

            Gibney’s documentary is very similar to Errol Morris’ new documentary Standard Operating Procedure (2008), which chronicles the events at Abu Ghraib and the atrocities committed there. After seeing numerous clips from SOP and watching Taxi to the Dark Side, I recommend that people interested in this subject pick one to watch. They both basically tell the same story, and have equally haunting images. Both use recreations to help the viewer start to fathom what happened; however the recreations are more prevalent in SOP. If you’re looking for a little more information about the different torture camps, then I recommend Gibney’s piece. If you’re mainly looking for the stories of the reasons why the certain perverse photographs were taken, then SOP is the better choice.

            Either way, prepare yourself for an emotional rollercoaster with daunting images and facts that will make your insides squirm and your outsides cringe.

3 Government Blunders out of 5

 

(After seeing parts from SOP, I wasn’t that affected by Taxi. I remember first found about these events when I first watched SOP and that it made me sick. But, after being subjected to SOP already, honestly, it was hard to sit through Taxi because I had already seen the terrible images and wasn’t that keen on seeing them again.)

A second look at VCB

“Vicky Cristina Barcelona is Woody Allen’s sexy, comedic film about two American tourists that prove it is impossible to turn down a gorgeous Spaniard...” – (? I don’t’ know her name, L)

“Vicky Cristina Barcelona is: one hottie and one wannabe rubbing up against a smoldering Hispano hunk and his crazy fire-cracker ex. Who doesn’t love a three-way?”- The Doctor

"Vicky Cristina Barcelona: Scarlett Johansson: hot. Penelope Cruz: hot. Rebecca Hall: hot. Javier Bardem: hot. The movie: not.” - Jonny

            I think our journalism class hit the nail on the head. As a class, I think we all agreed that Vicky Cristina Barcelona is full of beautiful people but missed the mark with the plot. In effect, this movie, written and directed by Woody Allen is a self-indulgent fantasy a

I mean come-on. A movie about two friends’ trip to Barcelona for the summer, and the tales of the love they encounter. Vicky and Cristina (played by the beautiful Rebecca Hall and the voluptuous Scarlett Johansson) have two very different ideas about love. Vicky is engaged and ready to settle down with a man she knows is reliable and routine. Cristina on the other hand, is more adventurous and risky with her love, accepting heartbreak as part of the game.

            While in Barcelona, Vicky and Cristina are approached by a handsome eccentric painter, named Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem; this part is a dramatic role change for him, who was last seen in the Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men as a psychotic serial killer), and turns both Vicky and Cristina’s world upside down.

            I felt this movie was for pure entertainment value only. Although the plot had some twists and turns, I really couldn’t find any meaning within the story.  I feel this movie is meant to be watched once. Watching the movie for a second time (to refresh my memory to write this review), I found myself bored and impatient. I knew what was going to happen (obviously), but I knew none of it mattered because in the end, because everyone ends back in the same place. The subtle suspense that kept the movie exciting to watch the first time, was gone on the second viewing and although the actresses were beautiful and fun to watch, but I felt they didn’t add much substance to the movie. Directions: Watch once. Take it for what it is. Do not repeat.

3 Stars out of 5