Trent's poor computers...

Be warned, this is primarily a frustrated rant.

This morning an assignment was due in one of my classes. It is worth 20% of my mark, although the course is only a half-course, so it's nothing huge. However, it was supposed to be over 4000 words long. That, along with its being a science course, made it a particularly arduous assignment. It was long, boring and not worth as much as the time put into it.

In my typical fashion it wasn't completed until fairly late the night before, which is OK with me. I am a little lazy and haven't bought new ink for my printer in ages and I instead use the printers at Trent to print off the assignments beforehand. It's a little annoying, but it always works. This morning, however, it didn't.

I took the early bus to give myself some leeway before class, especially since the computers have a tendency to take a little while to load up. I had roughly 30 minutes before class. You would think this would be well enough time to turn on a computer and print a paper off.

The computers at Trent are notorious for taking long to boot up, but the mornings are especially bad because the computers have been shut down all night. I'm guessing (I'm not a computer whiz) that as the computers are used throughout the day, they seem to 'warm up', like a car, and take a much shorter time to load up later in the day.

The computer finally loaded up with ten minutes left for class. Waiting for twenty minutes to have a computer load up is painful, especially in this day and age. I finalized some of the files and sent them to the printer, although the second file froze as it was loading (I imagine the computer was still feeling a tad slow at that point).

I then received an error message telling me that the print job didn't work. As I discovered a few minutes later, the printer wasn't connected to my computer somehow and the printer itself required maintenance. Several other students in the computer lab were in the same situation and equally (if not more) displeased. One student kicked a few chairs around. I don't blame him.

At this point class was starting, so I elected to run across the bridge to the other side of the campus to print off the paper in the library. It didn't take quite as long to load this time and I finally got into class ten minutes late.

I do take some of the fault for this silly situation, but it really shows how awful Trent's computer system is. Forty minutes to print something? It's a little reminiscent of print times circa 1982.

Trent has a lot of things going for it, but computers is not one of them.

Grads looking for a job?

No, this isn't a classifieds site, but I wouldn't be surprised if a whole swath of university graduates and potential graduates end up thinking it is.

The economic crisis is hitting the North American labour markets hard. People are losing jobs right, left and centre. But it's not just those who are losing jobs that are in trouble. The university and college grads that have just committed many years of their life to education in order to get a good job when they come out may find that there is very little for them. And the Baby Boomers (whose work we're supposed to take over) don't want to retire yet, especially since their RRSPs have gone down the toilet. Shit.

So what to do? Maybe you'll find that job that you were looking for, but you'll certainly face stiffer competition to actually get the job.

With limited jobs out there, employers may be looking for only the top candidates for jobs. You might have been able to get that job with your undergrad degree before, but with so few jobs, you might need an additional degree or certificate to boost yourself above the rest. Uh oh, that could be costly.

Alternatively, you could shoot lower. With an undergrad degree, maybe it's far more appropriate to look for the jobs that only require a high school diploma or some years of post-secondary training, putting yourself above the rest with your qualifications. The pay would probably be less than other jobs, but at least it would be better than EI.

Then again, you could always go back to school. If employers are looking for that extra nudge, school might be the way to go. Maybe grab yourself a Master's degree or short-term college diploma. If you want job security, take a look at professional schools. Just don't wade too far into those fancy-schmancy business schools. Yet. The financial sector has taken a beating, and the first to go are the new people. And the financial pain is far from over.

But school costs money. Some people simply can't afford going back. And there's no guarantee that throwing $8000 at a Master's degree will help you get a job. And getting into schools might be tough, too. Not only will more people be tempted to take this root (making it tougher to get in), universities have been hit financially too, resulting in higher tuition fees, lower quality of education and an apprehension to expand university services. You could go back to school, but it might be crap. Is it really worth it?

Us upper years are in a tough spot, especially those who are about to enter the job market. I would say that the government should provide help for these people in the way of jobs, but at least us youngens have the benefit of time to build ourselves. The people who are losing their jobs right now may have mortgages, kids and other expenses. They need more help right now.

The biggest recommendation I could give to the government is to extend to interest-rate freeze period on student loans. As far as I understand, the banks come a bitin' six months after graduation. That period of time needs to be extended significantly so that recent grads don't end up declaring bankruptcy in their twenties.

Dear Facebook: You're no longer my BFF...

OK, so FB and I were never BFFs, but I think mine is a common sentiment among people who are beginning to realize that our relationship to FB may be a little too close.

Over the past few months I've been gradually trimming down my footprint on FB. Information regarding personal interests and whatnot was removed, then silly applications and the piece that seemed to grab the most attention: my relationship status. I had been listed as 'single', but I just removed the status altogether. But, FB notifies everyone that I 'am no longer listed as single'. Needless to say, messages came flowing in asking who my new lover was. Sorry, my real relationship status never changed.

Today I went on a greater rampage. Most personal information was removed, including my birthday (darn, I won't be receiving FB birthday messages anymore...) and work experience. I'm now one of those lame FBers who provides very little information about themself. Sorry, kids. I even elected to remove over 100 'friends'. Do I talk to them? No. Have I ever had a real frienship with them? Maybe, but not really anymore. Do I really want to know what's going on in their lives, let alone they know what's going on in my life? Not particularly. What a strange thing to do, but it's done.

So why did I do such a thing? Why am I shutting myself off from the world of FB?

I've mentioned the future risks of FB before. Photos could come back to bite us in 30 years when we're running this world; potential employers can peruse our profiles at their will; and stuff about us could get out there that we really don't need spread over the internet. These risks played a part, but it's really the present nature of FB that bothers me.

I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine the other day regarding FB and we discussed how bizarre FB is. Yes, having 'friends' is strange, especially when we trust them to have a full-blown view of us. Posting our photo albums online for everyone to see is similar to inviting all these people to your home and going through your photo albums. That's kind of weird.

I have found that certain friendships have become de-personalized, whereby phone and lengthy email dialogue has now been replaced by 'wall posts'. What a shame. Sure, it's great for quick messages, but when it becomes the norm, the seriousness of the friendship degrades.

I do enjoy aspects of FB. I can look at pictures, advertise my blogs and keep in touch with some people who may not use email or phone. But that's about it.

Perhaps I'm crazy and am just trying to stop the inevitable. Maybe FB will one day swallow us all up. But I'm not the only one doing this, and I doubt I'll be the last.

A very slow system...

It's the start of a new year. For university students this means that it is also the start of a new semester. New classes and new activities have already started. But it is not quite the breath of fresh air for everyone at Trent University.

One of the most anticipated events of the end of the past semester is the release of grades. But Trent is notoriously slow in posting such things. This has spurred quite a bit of concern among some of Trent's students. And justifiably so.

Many of the courses taken in the past semester are pre-requisites for courses some students are taking in the second semester. Unfortunately, these students do not yet know whether or not they have in fact passed the pre-requisite course, leaving them in quite a little dilemma. They have spent the past week attending lectures, signing up for seminars and purchasing books for courses they may not necessarily be able to attend. More importantly, they're missing out on the opportunity to attend alternative classes, which is becoming increasingly limited as they fill up.

In a different case, but equally as frustrating, is the situation in which at least one student athlete at Trent is involved in. Because of his grades from the previous year, he was unable to play for his team in the first semester, but would be allowed back onto the team in January provided his marks show some notable improvement. However, the season begins again during the first few days of January, well before the marks are released. Despite the full confidence that his marks are well above the requirement, he can not officially play without the consent of the Athletic Director who doesn't seem to have the authority to overide the university and acquire this particular athlete's marks.

Such a slow system is not only frustrating for students, but can also have serious implications for their academic and extracurricular performance. Trent should really smarten up. But it appears as though they're doing quite the opposite. Several days ago, a message from the university was posted stating that marks would be available by the Friday. A day later, the availability of marks was moved to the following Monday. Good grief.

The Take-Home Exam...

I just finished my last exam of the semester a few minutes ago. It feels wonderful. But it's also 11:43 PM. So what the hell am I doing writing this thing at such an hour, let alone writing about it minutes later?

It was a take-home exam. I've only heard of such things in myth, but this year I was given my first one. Now that I no longer need to fret about it, I realize that the take-home exam is quite an interesting concept. 

It's an exam, but such a quirky one. No need to study frantically for hours on end for that single session of intense exam writing because you are given it well in advance of its due date. Rightly so, they would expect more of you than what you might answer in a typical exam. But it's also not a paper. There is no need to heavily research external papers or information; everything is right inside your class notes and readings. And bonus, no need to cite anything.

But there are some other elements to it that stand out in my mind. Do they really expect us not to discuss it or work on it with other students? I mean, few of us are stupid enough at this stage to hand in carbon copies of work, but general ideas about questions can easily be discussed. This is not to say that one would do this, but the potential is there. Even though it's clearly prohibited, how on Earth are they going to enforce such a thing? The honour system is only so effective.

But maybe there's more here than we think. For instance, I considered this take-home exam to not really be an exam. I finished those awhile ago. And then I flew home immediately after completing them, still without starting the take-home. My ability to go over it and discuss with fellow students was therefore severely inhibited (although still possible...woo internet and telephone). So perhaps the same thing occurs for other students who may go home. They consider the take-home exam to be much easier than the other exams, so they go home (away from the university town) and work on it there. Perhaps the instructors take that into consideration? Or maybe I'm thinking way too far into it. But it's a possibility.

The take-home exam is an interesting thing. Not too hard, but not too easy. And worth enough for one to care enough about it to try to do a good job. But full of so much cheating potential. I wonder why they give out such things?  

Cur--sive??...

This past Saturday I took one of the more difficult tests that I have faced in my life: The LSAT. This is the uber-standardized test that plays a significant part getting people into law schools in Canada.

I was a tad nervous before the test, but went into it feeling strangely comfortable. Little did I know that the most difficult and stressful part of this 3 hour-plus exam would be the administrative hulabaloo right at the beginning.

Under normal contracts or tests of this nature, there is a statement that states that you will not cheat, not provide answers to others etc, and you are usually supposed to sign it. But not for the LSAT. Instead of simply signing the five-line statement, I was required to copy it out and then sign it. The worst part: it had to be copied out in cursive. Shit.

With the exception of my signature, I hadn't used cursive writing since grade 6. I quickly realized I had forgotten what many of the letters were supposed to look like, so I elected to make some up (after all, the test supervisor had said "cursive, or your best non-printing writing). It was atrocious.

Nothing could have prepared me for the stress of such a task. One by one, the people around me dropped their pencils to their desks as they completed the statement with ease, while I struggled having only completed half of the damn thing. It soon became clear that I was the only one left, as the test supervisor repeatedly asked when I'd be done. That was not fun.

I'm not sure where such a task came from or why it was necessary. Perhaps it is the real part of the LSAT that law schools look at, nevermind all those other mind-bending multiple-choice questions.

If this is the case, I'm screwed.

A bizarre request...

During one of my lectures this morning, someone sitting beside decided to convince those around him that I was a well-established drug dealer in Peterborough. This was done solely to amuse this one guy, who of course did not think anything would come of it. I passively ignored him, assuming the same thing and thinking his dire need for attention would slip through the cracks.

Before too long I was approached by an interested 'customer'. In a quiet and careful manner, he asked me whether I sold drugs. I very quickly told him no and he is asking the wrong guy. Hoping the topic would be dropped, I returned to my notes and listened to the professor give his lecture. The original perpetrator of this bizarre little situation was cracking up emphatically, perhaps trying to attract more attention to himself.

The 'customer' returned a second time, this time considerably more interested and little irritable. He claimed that he was told that I would say that I don't sell drugs because I deal only in highly illicit and expensive ones and do not wish to expand my market too large. He then went on to ask me for two types of hard drugs: MDMA (which I hadn't heard of at the time, but later learned is similar to ecstasy) and heroin. I was rightly amazed to be asked about these drugs and quite shocked, immediately telling him that he should go away and that I was sorry I couldn't help him out, but I wasn't the guy he wanted to talk to, nor did I know who would be. 

He was a little upset and fairly embarrassed. Justly so. The guy who started it all was laughing his head off. What an asshole. And to top it all off, this all occurred while the professor was speaking and the rest of the class was silent, perhaps catching every word of this bizarre encounter.

A few issues to mention:

1) The last thing I want is other people catching bits and pieces of that conversation and walking away assuming I'm a dealer of hard narcotics. It's not a good thing for one's reputation.

2)  I don't want to generalize, but people who are itching for heroin might very well be a little more, say, aggressive in their search. The last thing I need is an angry heroin addict coming after me for someone else's stupid prank.

3) I don't deal drugs. But even if I did, that's not how I would go about it, especially with something as illicit as heroin or MDMA. Silent, public places don't seem like a good spot for negotiations of that magnitude.

4) Jesus Christ! Heroin?!? 

   

An ever-so unexciting ceremony...

Last night I attended Trent's Academic All-Canadian Awards Ceremony. I was lucky enough to be awarded the title of an Academic All-Canadian, but I felt the ceremony to be quite disappointing.

The university prides itself on its Academic All-Canadians (which are members of a Varsity team that maintain a GPA of 80% or better). Considering it is a school of only 7000 students and has a rather limited athletic program, Trent still manages to more Academic All-Canadians than many of the large universities throughout Canada. It is the mark of having built an athletics program that not only works well in partnership with the academic setting of the school, but also improves that aspect of Trent, as it was remarked that more athletes graduate from Trent per capita than the average student. This is something that should surely be celebrated.

But alas, it was not to be. At least to the extent I think it should. The ceremony itself was held in the multi-purpose room of the Athletics Complex, rather than one of Trent's more comfortable and luxurious rooms where other small ceremonies take place. To the credit of the Athletics Department, the room was transformed quite well. But it was still lacking. White Christmas lights can only go so far. There was food and drinks provided, but it clearly came off the shelf within the past few days and the drinks were sadly without a touch of alcohol.

The ceremony itself was quick. Only half the recipients showed up to receive their awards, which happened after a brief speech by the Athletics Director and the President of the university, Bonnie Patterson. Getting the President to come and attend ceremonies is no easy feat, but when she does come, it means the ceremony means something. And the way the Athletics Director spoke of such an award also speaks to the importance of it. But it just didn't seem like it.

I've been told that in years past this event has been considerably better. Alcohol has been served and nearly everyone has shown up. Parents, coaches, friends; it's been a big deal. But quite frankly, last night's ceremony felt wimpy. I'm not surprised people no longer show up.

I know the university likes to pipe up any award given out and that I am slightly biased in this view, but if the school really feels that this is an important award (and I believe it really is), then put some work into it and make the students feel like they actually earned a nice ceremony.

Just a thought on bottled water...

Our school seems to be having a drive aimed at educating people towards the truth of bottled water. My intention is not to preach that sermon, but I do suggest looking into bottled water. There's a lot of mischief going on in that industry.

Something quickly came across my mind today concerning bottled water and its pricing. A 591 ml bottle of Dasani or Evian runs between $1.50 and $2.00 (probably higher if you're at some large event). Do the math and that's approximately $2.54/litre. Compare that with one of our most hated, but desired commodities: gasoline. Right now gas is cheap, hovering around $0.79/litre, but in the summer it was as high as $1.49/litre. Regardless, gasoline never even came close to the price of bottled water.

This will be a frighteningly interesting situation in the future. Considering our lives and economy seem to dwell so much on oil prices and gasoline prices, how amazing our lives will be when our water situation starts to look like oil's: falling rapidly. The price of water that we get essentially for free at this point could very well grow higher than the price of gasoline. We'll be kicking ourselves at that point. Or have inhabited the rest of the solar system (fingers crossed).

Bad outlook for next year's crop...

It seems tiresome that I write so often about the impacts of the financial crisis, but it speaks not to my nerdiness, but the truly incredible significance it has.

A recent article in the Globe & Mail detailed the impact that the crisis is having on the endowment funds of universities throughout Canada. The endowment funds, are far as I know, are the funds that a university has to spend outside of the income it generates from tuition and fees from students. This money largely comes from the government and private donors and is often invested in the money markets. October of 2007 saw the highest value of Canadian university endowment funds ever seen, with a total of nearly CAD$10 billion. My, things have changed.

With the collapse in the market, universities have seen their endowment funds crumble. Some have lost as much as $100m alone, nearly 1/3 of their endowment funds. And with the ever-increasing costs of running a school and the lack of adequate government funding, things are looking bleak. And it doesn't help that private donors are hesitant to dish out their now seriously important cash. This could have a massive impact on students in Canada and the quality of our education.

In light of their new financial situation, university leaders have been expressing concern over the parts of the universities that will be hit. The hiring of new faculty and the continued employment of some faculty will be ceased at some schools. This is already a problem at many schools, particularly Trent (which prides itself on its low student-to-faculty ratio) where instructors are being hired on a temporary and part-time basis at a significantly lower wage than their full-time counterparts. Believe me, you don't want the people in these positions teaching you.

Scholarships will also be hit. For many schools, scholarships are the best way to attract the best and brightest to your school. The main (and deciding) reason I am at Trent now is because they provide me with a more than healthy scholarship. My money won't be effected by the downturn, but it could prevent others who were in my situation from deciding to come here or to any other school, and that's a sad thought. Even more important may be the reduction in smaller scholarships, of which there are thousands. These scholarships (though sometimes not particularly huge) help to reduce the cost of university for many students, which is the largest barrier to education for many people.

Other programs on campus may get cut, though it is hard to tell which ones. Others may simple be reduced. But the whole combination of program cutting will reduce the overall quality of the education.

The biggest impact may be absorbed by the students themselves in the cost of tuition and fees, which may increase substantially from their already high levels.

It is important to note that the students planning to come to school for the first time next year may not be adversely affected because the schools have already budgeted most of their tuition and scholarship numbers for the next year, but the class entering in 2010 will certainly feel the pain.

If I were selfish about this I might think this is no biggie. But I have family who will be starting university in the next few years. They will certainly be hit. But I'll be gone after the next year, so no harm to me, right? Well, I plan on going on to professional school and I have many friends looking into graduate school. Undergraduate costs are nothing compared to those programs, so we might all get hit.

Student politics takes a step, but in which direction...

Seemingly from out of nowhere, Trent University's Student President is on the chopping block. A recent meeting held by the Student Union included several motions recommending the impeachment of Pres. Liam Mooney. As a result, he has been indefinitely suspended pending an investigation into the reasoning for the motion. A call for his resignation has also been proposed. 

Wow. That was quick. In all likelihood, Mooney's days are numbered as Student President, but it certainly seemed to come out of nowhere. I was aware that there was some discontent among the student body towards Mooney, but such discontent often exists with any Student President. I'm also adequately cynical to assume that nobody cares nearly enough about student politics at Trent to actually go as far as to recommend impeachment. But that's beside the point.

I'm not entirely sure whether or not this is a sign of a good student-political system. Sure, it's great that a President is being held accountable for his actions, but what were his actions? I'm a fairly well-informed student, but not to the degree that I would find anything so wrong with Mooney that would induce me to the point of recommending impeachment. This seems to be a common sentiment among the student body.

On a Facebook group that advertised the student meeting, nearly half the public comments pertained to students asking what exactly Mooney had done wrong. There was no mention on the site as to what this was all about. I've looked into it and I still don't know the full story. I believe some of it has to do with him wanting to audit the various student groups on campus, eventually weeding out the 'inefficient' ones. 

But when looking at this in context, I'm slightly confused. For the first time in my life, the student elections contained two distinct parties, one of which Mooney was the 'leader'. From what I remember last spring, the two parties were less than enthusiastic about each other. But a myriad of people from both parties were elected, giving rise to a Student Union that was hopelessly divided. I say I'm confused because I'm not sure whether having two parties govern the Student Union is a good thing or not.

Sure, one can keep the check on the other one, but party politics can be annoyingly, well, political. Does anyone else have any experience with student politics being run this way, or any feelings towards it? Because I'm at a standstill. 

Funding the unusable...

Here at good ol' Trent University, we find ourselves in a precarious situation. The school has no formal student centre. Because we're based on the 'college system' (whereby the campus is divided into four separate colleges), there is no large gathering space for students to call their own.

Apparently, many students are calling for the construction of such a building. It would house food services, student organizations and clubs, studying and meeting spaces and give the students a general feel that there was a spot on campus just for them. And the architects have put together formal plans for the centre, which is to be built in a location that wouldn't cause significant damage to Trent's naturalistic aesthetics.

Great. Sounds good, I guess. I don't really mind the way it is now, but the voice of the people must be heard. So let's get building.

But wait. Who is going to pay for this thing? Well, the university of course. We pay our tuition and all those extra fees (which go up every year), so why wouldn't the university be prepared to pay for this thing? After all, the other spots on campus would open up for other ventures now that the students would be gathering somewhere else.

Wrong. The university is somewhere in the midst of a $10m deficit, which will probably only get worse with the impending shrinkage of its endowment funds coming from this delightful economic crisis. And it's not like students are lining up to go to school. Enrollment rates around the country are falling, which means less money for the university. And the government is certainly not helping out at all.

So who does that leave to pay for it? Well, there's the private sector. "Booooo" come the disgruntled complaints of the left-wing, anti-establishment, hippie students. We don't want "The Man" owning our building. There is some justification to that. Much of Trent is becoming increasingly privatized and the consequences are slowly coming to fruition. For instance, the damn cafeteria food is priced up the wazoo. Today, in fact, I ended up paying an additional dollar to have ONE slice of less-than-fresh bacon put on my burger. Bastards.

So where does that leave us? The latest student president, Liam Mooney, is proposing that the students pay for it. A good $60-$100 each for the next four or five years (call it ten at Trent's pace). Wow. That's almost a month's worth of bills. I don't know about this.

The argument: we'll get to own it. It will belong to the students. Great. But wait, in five years I'll be long gone (fingers crossed) and I won't get to use the damn thing. And I sure as hell ain't paying for something that some damn grade nine kid will be using at my expense come 2012.

The student president continues to push for it and is threatening to put it to a referendum in the next student election. I hope (and predict) it will get blown out of the sky.

And even if it did go through, I would expect some recognition that I'm an owner. Perhaps a giant plaque with the names of every student forced to pay for the damn thing, with a special board dedicated to those who graduated or left before it was built. Or maybe, make it like some kind of a co-op, whereby each one of us receives a dividend of whatever profits this building somehow makes in the future. Then we can feel like those WestJet employees, you know, the annoying 'we're also WestJet Owners' people. Maybe they'd even build a statue to commemorate our hard-earned investment in the building, or at least call it the 'Poor Suckers' building.

It's all in the urine...

Our volleyball team recently finished our season after a proud finish at the Provincial Championships. As we made our way to the tournament on our washroomless bus, much of our discussion about the tournament centred around the issue of drug testing, and much of it had a relatively worrisome tone.

To my knowledge no one on our team uses steroids or Human Growth Hormone or any other performance-enhancing drug, and if they are, it certainly doesn't show. You would think that for this reason our team would have nothing to fear if we were approached by a doping official during one of their random drug tests. But this is not the case.

The league that we play under has an extensive list of prohibited substances, one of them being marijuana. This drug, which contrary to the implications made by the movie How High, is in no way performance-enhancing and is actually quite detrimental to one's performance, especially in a sport like volleyball.

Regardless, pot could very well act as our team's kryptonite. There is a good chance that if a member of our team were to be tested, they could test positive for pot. I understand how using performance-enhancing drugs should be monitored by an athletic league that wishes to ensure equality on the playing field, but should their jurisdiction be extended to a substance that is rivalled if not exceeded in potency by alcohol?

I realize that marijuana has harmful effects and poses several risks to the user, which include health risks, risk to schooling, jobs and one's career. But the people I know that use dope are aware of these risks and have more to lose than being kicked off a sports team.

Using marijuana is not necessarily the right thing, but it's also not necessarily the wrong thing. It may be illegal under Canadian law, but so is underage drinking, and both are enforced by the police. But the league doesn't check for underage alcohol use.

Should an athletic league really have the authority to extend its rules to something like marijuana?

8th time's the charm...

As a wild and rebellious university student, I figured it appropriate to fill my weekly quota for reckless and inebriated behavior by taking a night out with a group of friends. Much to my dismay, the night was less than enjoyable.

We approached the downtown core of the city where the main nightlife is to be found. Our first venture was to a local bar resembling someone's basement that their father had hopelessly tried to renovate right before he had kids. It was a popular hangout, which proved to be our downfall, as it was full. But we were not to be discouraged.

After a rather lengthy walk, we ended up in our favorite little pub. We found a quaint little table and were ready to bask in the lively, pocket-emptying night. But all failed when a friend of mine made a comment to the waitress, which she found weirdly offensive (believe me, it wasn't offensive at all). An akward cloud fell over the table immediately afterwards and it was decided that any potential enjoyment at this place was dashed to pieces. So off we went.

Since we're students, it goes without saying that we're cheap. Therefore, when faced with paying a cover charge we quickly dart away with our tails between our legs. So much for the third place.

Places 4 & 5 were full, which didn't come as much of a surprise. The most irritating attempt was attempt number six. We ventured over to the local '40+' hangout. As you may imagine, we were growing slightly desperate. It looked fine until we were asked to show our IDs. We didn't figure this to be a problem as we were all of legal age, and most of us got in without a snag. But when it came to myself & my friend, we were prohibited from entering because our IDs weren't issued from the Ontario government. We are both out-of-province students, carrying valid, government issued driver's licenses. But apparently these are a little too 'suspicious', so we had to be on our merry way. Again.

We decided to try one of the places that was full before, and we got in. But it apparently smelled like natural gas, so we were forced to leave. Zero for 7. We were certainly not batting well that night. Luckily, we decided to try one more place which turned out to be fine.

For a city that boasts a wonderful student-centred nightlife, we certainly seem to have missed the memo.

So much for textbooks...

In first year university courses there are usually hundreds if not thousands of students enlisted in one class. Try to imagine the workload faced by the professors of these courses, especially if they lack sufficient teaching and/or marking assistants. Unfortunately, when put in these situations, profs may be tempted to cut corners. I encountered such a situation recently.

I provide tutorship to a first year student at the university which I attend, and while aiding this student with problems in an assignment we happened across certain 'helpful hints' on Google. It turns out that the questions posed on the assignment (for which there was only one correct answer) were all on the internet, along with the answers. All my student needed to do was type in the first few words of the question and voila!

Don't worry, we only used the internet answers for checking his answers, but other students may not have been quite as disciplined.

I know that being a professor is a tough gig, especially if its only one part of someone's very hectic life. But if you're going to cut corners, you should probably re-think your strategy.

The students may be happy as they walk away with higher than expected grades, but seriously, you're only hurting them in the long run.