Of course the Hitler analogy is way out of bounds, as my reader notes. But I do think the fact-free cult of personality around Palin - her embodiment of an idealized representation of the America some feel they are losing - does represent something new and dangerous in politics. What we see is a politician who, for a critical segment of the population (the GOP base) cannot do wrong because she is Sarah Palin. She is a symbolic, iconic figure - and her support comes from non-rational identity politics in a time of economic distress and great social change.
Look: I've read history. I'd rather be over-vigilant than sorry.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Krugman's Take on the Immigration Issue
by Paul Krugman
New York Times Blog
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 26, 2010, 1:23 pm
The Curious Politics of Immigration
Just a quick note: my take on the politics of immigration is that it divides both parties, but in different ways.
Democrats are torn individually (a state I share). On one side, they favor helping those in need, which inclines them to look sympathetically on immigrants; plus they’re relatively open to a multicultural, multiracial society. I know that when I look at today’s Mexicans and Central Americans, they seem to me fundamentally the same as my grandparents seeking a better life in America.
On the other side, however, open immigration can’t coexist with a strong social safety net; if you’re going to assure health care and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global.
So Democrats have mixed feelings about immigration; in fact, it’s an agonizing issue.
Republicans, on the other hand, either love immigration or hate it. The business-friendly wing of the party likes inexpensive workers (and would really enjoy a huge guest-worker program that would both provide such workers and ensure that they can neither vote nor, in practice, unionize). But the cultural/nativist/tribal conservatives hate having these alien-looking, alien-sounding people on American soil.
So immigration is an issue that divides Republicans one from another, not within each individual’s heart.
For a long time the GOP was essentially run by business interests, with the cultural right taken for a ride; in 2004 Bush ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, then announced that the election gave him a mandate to … privatize Social Security.
But what the Tea Party really signifies, I think, is that the business interests have lost control, that the base, with its fears about the Other, has escaped from guidance. And the sudden immigration outburst is part of that phenomenon.
Democrats think this gives them an opening. I’m unclear about that, at least for 2010. But yes, in the long run you have think that if the GOP becomes the party of angry white men, unleashed — as opposed to angry white men harnessed to the business elite — it will have a poor future.
New York Times Blog
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 26, 2010, 1:23 pm
The Curious Politics of Immigration
Just a quick note: my take on the politics of immigration is that it divides both parties, but in different ways.
Democrats are torn individually (a state I share). On one side, they favor helping those in need, which inclines them to look sympathetically on immigrants; plus they’re relatively open to a multicultural, multiracial society. I know that when I look at today’s Mexicans and Central Americans, they seem to me fundamentally the same as my grandparents seeking a better life in America.
On the other side, however, open immigration can’t coexist with a strong social safety net; if you’re going to assure health care and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global.
So Democrats have mixed feelings about immigration; in fact, it’s an agonizing issue.
Republicans, on the other hand, either love immigration or hate it. The business-friendly wing of the party likes inexpensive workers (and would really enjoy a huge guest-worker program that would both provide such workers and ensure that they can neither vote nor, in practice, unionize). But the cultural/nativist/tribal conservatives hate having these alien-looking, alien-sounding people on American soil.
So immigration is an issue that divides Republicans one from another, not within each individual’s heart.
For a long time the GOP was essentially run by business interests, with the cultural right taken for a ride; in 2004 Bush ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, then announced that the election gave him a mandate to … privatize Social Security.
But what the Tea Party really signifies, I think, is that the business interests have lost control, that the base, with its fears about the Other, has escaped from guidance. And the sudden immigration outburst is part of that phenomenon.
Democrats think this gives them an opening. I’m unclear about that, at least for 2010. But yes, in the long run you have think that if the GOP becomes the party of angry white men, unleashed — as opposed to angry white men harnessed to the business elite — it will have a poor future.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The Middle Place by Kelly Corrigan
This book is a memoir about living in the middle place - what Corrigan calls the space between being someone's child and being someone's parent. Corrigan illuminates this intriguing dynamic by detailing her fight against breast cancer and her supporting her father in his fight against bladder cancer.
While Corrigan is a daughter who is torn that her father might die of cancer, she must also face the fear of falling victim to breast cancer; while she is a daughter caring for her father, she is a mother changing diapers, making playdates, and taking her kids to school. As such, this is a memoir about what it means to become an adult.
My main complaint is that Corrigan is self-indulgent and self-obsessed. She focuses nearly entirely on herself; she seems to care only about herself and her feelings, not anyone else. Maybe that is just because this is a memoir, however.
My other complaint is that the book clearly appeals more to women. I do not like categorizing literature; generally, I would not call a book "chick lit." A book is a book. If you like it, you like it. Anyone can like any book, I think. But this book was too emotional, too sappy. Corrigan would start crying (again), and I would think, Blah, blah. Whatever.
Overall, an easy, breezy book, which was a relief to read right now.
Here is a trailer for the book featuring Corrigan:
While Corrigan is a daughter who is torn that her father might die of cancer, she must also face the fear of falling victim to breast cancer; while she is a daughter caring for her father, she is a mother changing diapers, making playdates, and taking her kids to school. As such, this is a memoir about what it means to become an adult.
My main complaint is that Corrigan is self-indulgent and self-obsessed. She focuses nearly entirely on herself; she seems to care only about herself and her feelings, not anyone else. Maybe that is just because this is a memoir, however.
My other complaint is that the book clearly appeals more to women. I do not like categorizing literature; generally, I would not call a book "chick lit." A book is a book. If you like it, you like it. Anyone can like any book, I think. But this book was too emotional, too sappy. Corrigan would start crying (again), and I would think, Blah, blah. Whatever.
Overall, an easy, breezy book, which was a relief to read right now.
Here is a trailer for the book featuring Corrigan:
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Jerome Loving - Mark Twain (2)
I finish this biography of Mark Twain. The book is concise with short chapters. (I always prefer short chapters) The prose is plain. There are no rhetorical flourishes. It's brisk if not compelling. This is the book to read if you desire the most current biographical treatment of this amazing man who led a long and amazing life.
Tea Party Folly
Are Tea Partiers Dupes?
by Jonathan Chait
Jonah Goldberg says the Tea Party movement is, in part, "a delayed Bush backlash." George W. Bush, the argument goes, was a squish who betrayed the conservative philosophy. But since the right had nowhere to go, the current backlash against deficits and the financial bailout is a time-released backlash against his policies, because "Conservatives don’t want to be fooled again."
But they are being fooled again. Indeed, the Tea Party movement is a vehicle of the fooling. The conservative movement is organized around the principle of opposition to progressive taxation. Tax cuts -- the more regressive the better -- take priority over everything else. That was also the organizing priority of the Bush administration -- which, unsurprisingly, enjoyed overwhelming support from conservative elites and conservative voters in both 2000 and 2004.
Now, one problem with the conservative movement's monomaniacal opposition to progressive taxation is that it's a poor way to shrink government spending. People don't favor tax cuts for the rich, so the only way to enact those tax cuts is to deny that there's any trade off between them and more popular spending programs. Bush was never going to be able to oppose the wildly-popular prescription drug benefit in 2000 while also favoring a huge tax cut. He may have gotten away with abandoning the prescription drug benefit in 2003 by telling the public it was no long affordable, but that would have complicated his ability to pass another huge tax cut in 2003. So he did it all and set a fiscal time bomb.
The backlash against Bush from the right is largely a way of absolving conservatism of Bush's failures. Indeed, the Tea Party movement is largely driving the Republican Party along the same lines that Bush did. The central emphasis of the movement is opposition to progressive taxation -- hence the emphasis on Tax Day rallies, the defining of "Tea" as an acronym for "Taxed Enough Already," and the general Randian flavor of the movement.
On the merits, taxes are a strange focus of conservative ire. President Obama has kept in place the Bush tax cuts for 98% of the public, tax revenues are at a low point, and the stimulus included hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax cuts for businesses and individuals. (To be sure, you can dismiss these as temporary, and I'd agree, but on the same grounds, you ought to dismiss as temporary the rise in stimulus spending that went along with the tax cuts.)
But the emphasis on opposing progressive taxation does serve the interests of the Republican Party just fine. If you look at the general thrust of the Tea party complaints -- the focus on taxes, the persistent denunciations of Medicare cuts -- you can see it's pushing the GOP in the direction it already wants to go, which is to replicate the policy mix of the Bush administration. This isn't a rebellion against Bush's policies but a way of displacing anger at their failure.
Michael Brendan Dougherty writes:
[T]he Tea Party is nothing more than a Republican-managed tantrum. Send the conservative activists into the streets to vent their anger. Let Obama feel the brunt of it. And if the GOP shows a modicum of contrition, the runaways will come home. ...
The Tea Party movement creates the conditions in which the activist base of the GOP can feel like it is part of the game again. They can forget Bush-era betrayals, swallow their doubts, and vote Republican this November. The next Reagan is coming, the next Contract With America will work, the next Republican nominee will be one of us. All it takes is for someone to appreciate the anger—and it doesn’t matter that she supported the bailouts that enraged them or the candidate who forsook their ideas and support.
Former GOP staffer Scott Gallupo comments, "I don’t deny the Tea Partyers’ sincerity. But anyone who doesn’t see the reality of the Dougherty scenario is simply being painfully naive."
Just wait until the next Republican Contract With America comes out. It will be filled with specific promises of tax cuts and non-specific promises to cut spending. If Republicans gain power, they will -- again -- cut taxes and fail to cut spending. And conservatives will conclude once again that the leaders have failed the movement and resume their quest for more pure leaders.
by Jonathan Chait
Jonah Goldberg says the Tea Party movement is, in part, "a delayed Bush backlash." George W. Bush, the argument goes, was a squish who betrayed the conservative philosophy. But since the right had nowhere to go, the current backlash against deficits and the financial bailout is a time-released backlash against his policies, because "Conservatives don’t want to be fooled again."
But they are being fooled again. Indeed, the Tea Party movement is a vehicle of the fooling. The conservative movement is organized around the principle of opposition to progressive taxation. Tax cuts -- the more regressive the better -- take priority over everything else. That was also the organizing priority of the Bush administration -- which, unsurprisingly, enjoyed overwhelming support from conservative elites and conservative voters in both 2000 and 2004.
Now, one problem with the conservative movement's monomaniacal opposition to progressive taxation is that it's a poor way to shrink government spending. People don't favor tax cuts for the rich, so the only way to enact those tax cuts is to deny that there's any trade off between them and more popular spending programs. Bush was never going to be able to oppose the wildly-popular prescription drug benefit in 2000 while also favoring a huge tax cut. He may have gotten away with abandoning the prescription drug benefit in 2003 by telling the public it was no long affordable, but that would have complicated his ability to pass another huge tax cut in 2003. So he did it all and set a fiscal time bomb.
The backlash against Bush from the right is largely a way of absolving conservatism of Bush's failures. Indeed, the Tea Party movement is largely driving the Republican Party along the same lines that Bush did. The central emphasis of the movement is opposition to progressive taxation -- hence the emphasis on Tax Day rallies, the defining of "Tea" as an acronym for "Taxed Enough Already," and the general Randian flavor of the movement.
On the merits, taxes are a strange focus of conservative ire. President Obama has kept in place the Bush tax cuts for 98% of the public, tax revenues are at a low point, and the stimulus included hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax cuts for businesses and individuals. (To be sure, you can dismiss these as temporary, and I'd agree, but on the same grounds, you ought to dismiss as temporary the rise in stimulus spending that went along with the tax cuts.)
But the emphasis on opposing progressive taxation does serve the interests of the Republican Party just fine. If you look at the general thrust of the Tea party complaints -- the focus on taxes, the persistent denunciations of Medicare cuts -- you can see it's pushing the GOP in the direction it already wants to go, which is to replicate the policy mix of the Bush administration. This isn't a rebellion against Bush's policies but a way of displacing anger at their failure.
Michael Brendan Dougherty writes:
[T]he Tea Party is nothing more than a Republican-managed tantrum. Send the conservative activists into the streets to vent their anger. Let Obama feel the brunt of it. And if the GOP shows a modicum of contrition, the runaways will come home. ...
The Tea Party movement creates the conditions in which the activist base of the GOP can feel like it is part of the game again. They can forget Bush-era betrayals, swallow their doubts, and vote Republican this November. The next Reagan is coming, the next Contract With America will work, the next Republican nominee will be one of us. All it takes is for someone to appreciate the anger—and it doesn’t matter that she supported the bailouts that enraged them or the candidate who forsook their ideas and support.
Former GOP staffer Scott Gallupo comments, "I don’t deny the Tea Partyers’ sincerity. But anyone who doesn’t see the reality of the Dougherty scenario is simply being painfully naive."
Just wait until the next Republican Contract With America comes out. It will be filled with specific promises of tax cuts and non-specific promises to cut spending. If Republicans gain power, they will -- again -- cut taxes and fail to cut spending. And conservatives will conclude once again that the leaders have failed the movement and resume their quest for more pure leaders.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Students Addicted to Social Media - New UM Study
21 April 2010
University of Maryland Newsdesk
A new study out today from the International Center for Media & the Public Agenda (ICMPA) at the University of Maryland, concludes that most college students are not just unwilling, but functionally unable to be without their media links to the world. "I clearly am addicted and the dependency is sickening," said one person in the study. "I feel like most people these days are in a similar situation, for between having a Blackberry, a laptop, a television, and an iPod, people have become unable to shed their media skin."
The new ICMPA study, "24 Hours: Unplugged," asked 200 students at the College Park campus to give up all media for 24 hours. After their 24 hours of abstinence, the students were then asked to blog on private class websites about their experiences: to report their successes and admit to any failures. The 200 students wrote more than 110,000 words: in aggregate, about the same number of words as a 400-page novel.
WITHOUT DIGITAL TIES, STUDENTS FEEL UNCONNECTED EVEN TO THOSE WHO ARE CLOSE BY
"We were surprised by how many students admitted that they were 'incredibly addicted' to media," noted the project director Susan D. Moeller, a journalism professor at the University of Maryland and the director of the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda which conducted the study. "But we noticed that what they wrote at length about was how they hated losing their personal connections. Going without media meant, in their world, going without their friends and family."
"The students did complain about how boring it was go anywhere and do anything without being plugged into music on their MP3 players," said Moeller. "And many commented that it was almost impossible to avoid the TVs on in the background at all times in their friends' rooms. But what they spoke about in the strongest terms was how their lack of access to text messaging, phone calling, instant messaging, email and Facebook, meant that they couldn't connect with friends who lived close by, much less those far away."
"Texting and IM-ing my friends gives me a constant feeling of comfort," wrote one student. "When I did not have those two luxuries, I felt quite alone and secluded from my life. Although I go to a school with thousands of students, the fact that I was not able to communicate with anyone via technology was almost unbearable."
The student responses to the assignment showed not just that 18-21 year old college students are constantly texting and on Facebook -- with calling and email distant seconds as ways of staying in touch, especially with friends -- but that students' lives are wired together in such ways that opting out of that communication pattern would be tantamount to renouncing a social life.
NEWS: ACCESSED VIA CONNECTIONS WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY
Very few students in the study reported that they regularly watched news on television or read a local or national newspaper (although a few said they regularly read The Diamondback, the University of Maryland student newspaper). They also didn't mention checking mainstream media news sites or listening to radio news while commuting in their cars. Yet student after student demonstrated knowledge of specific news stories. How did they get the information? In a disaggregated way, and not typically from the news outlet that broke or committed resources to a story. "To be entirely honest I am glad I failed the assignment," wrote one student, "because if I hadn't opened my computer when I did I would not have known about the violent earthquake in Chile from an informal blog post on Tumblr."
"Students expressed tremendous anxiety about being cut-off from information," observed Ph.D. student Raymond McCaffrey, a former writer and editor at The Washington Post, and a current researcher on the study. "One student said he realized that he suddenly 'had less information than everyone else, whether it be news, class information, scores, or what happened on Family Guy."
"They care about what is going on among their friends and families and even in the world at large," said McCaffrey. " But most of all they care about being cut off from that instantaneous flow of information that comes from all sides and does not seemed tied to any single device or application or news outlet."
That's the real takeaway of this study for journalists: students showed no significant loyalty to a news program, news personality or even news platform. Students have only a casual relationship to the originators of news, and in fact rarely distinguished between news and more general information.
While many in the journalism profession are committing significant resources to deliver content across media platforms --print, broadcast, online, mobile -- the young adults in this study appeared to be generally oblivious to branded news and information. For most of the students reporting in the study, information of all kinds comes in an undifferentiated wave to them via social media. If a bit of information rises to a level of interest, the student will pursue it -- but often by following the story via "unconventional" outlets, such as through text messages, their email accounts, Facebook and Twitter.
Students said that only the most specific or significant news events -- for example, a medal event at the Olympics -- merited their tuning into to a mainstream outlet. Even news events that students cared about were often accessed via their personal interactions. To learn about the Maryland vs. Virginia Tech basketball game, for example, one student told of "listening to someone narrate the game from a conversation they were having on their own phone" (although he would have preferred watching it on TV) and another student told of calling her father to learn more about the earthquake in Chile.
STUDY BACKGROUND:
The University of Maryland is a large state university campus, and the class, JOUR 175: Media Literacy, that undertook this 24-hour media-free assignment, is a "core course" for the entire student body -- which means it enrolls undergraduate students across majors. It is, in short, a class of 200 students, characterized by a diversity of age, race, ethnicity, religion and nationality. According to the assignment, students had to go media-free for a full day (or had to try to go media-free), but they were allowed to pick which 24 hours in a nine-day period, from February 24-March 4. By coincidence that period saw several major news events, including the earthquake in Chile on February 27, and the close of the Vancouver Olympics on February 28.
According to separately obtained demographic data on the student class, 75.6 percent of the students in JOUR 175 self-identify as Caucasian/White, 9.4 percent as Black, 6.3 percent as Asian, 1.6 percent as Latino, 3.1 percent as Mixed Race and 3.9 percent as Other. Students who self-reported themselves as non-American, said they were from China, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Ethiopia. Women outnumbered men, 55.9 percent to 44.1 percent.
44.1 percent of the class reported that their parents or guardians earned over $100,000 or more; 28.3 percent reported that their parents or guardians earned between $75-$100,000; 22 percent reported coming from a household with an income between $50-75,000; and 5.5 percent reported that their families' income was between $25-50,000.
40.9 percent of the students who responded to the demographic survey reported that they were first-year students, 40.9 percent reported that they were sophomores, 11 percent reported that they were juniors, and 7.1 reported that they were seniors or beyond. Most students reported their ages as between 18-21; the average class age was 19.5.
When asked about what types of media devices they own, 43.3 percent of the students reported that they had a "smart phone" (i.e. a Blackberry or an iPhone), and 56.7 percent said they did not.
Prof. Susan Moeller led the study research team, and the six teaching assistants for the course acted as researchers/authors, conducting a qualitative content analysis of the student responses. Those six TAs, all PhD students in the Philip Merrill College of Journalism, were: Ms. EunRyung Chong, Mr. Sergei Golitsinski, Ms. Jing Guo, Mr. Raymond McCaffrey, Mr. Andrew Nynka and Ms. Jessica Roberts.
University of Maryland Newsdesk
A new study out today from the International Center for Media & the Public Agenda (ICMPA) at the University of Maryland, concludes that most college students are not just unwilling, but functionally unable to be without their media links to the world. "I clearly am addicted and the dependency is sickening," said one person in the study. "I feel like most people these days are in a similar situation, for between having a Blackberry, a laptop, a television, and an iPod, people have become unable to shed their media skin."
The new ICMPA study, "24 Hours: Unplugged," asked 200 students at the College Park campus to give up all media for 24 hours. After their 24 hours of abstinence, the students were then asked to blog on private class websites about their experiences: to report their successes and admit to any failures. The 200 students wrote more than 110,000 words: in aggregate, about the same number of words as a 400-page novel.
WITHOUT DIGITAL TIES, STUDENTS FEEL UNCONNECTED EVEN TO THOSE WHO ARE CLOSE BY
"We were surprised by how many students admitted that they were 'incredibly addicted' to media," noted the project director Susan D. Moeller, a journalism professor at the University of Maryland and the director of the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda which conducted the study. "But we noticed that what they wrote at length about was how they hated losing their personal connections. Going without media meant, in their world, going without their friends and family."
"The students did complain about how boring it was go anywhere and do anything without being plugged into music on their MP3 players," said Moeller. "And many commented that it was almost impossible to avoid the TVs on in the background at all times in their friends' rooms. But what they spoke about in the strongest terms was how their lack of access to text messaging, phone calling, instant messaging, email and Facebook, meant that they couldn't connect with friends who lived close by, much less those far away."
"Texting and IM-ing my friends gives me a constant feeling of comfort," wrote one student. "When I did not have those two luxuries, I felt quite alone and secluded from my life. Although I go to a school with thousands of students, the fact that I was not able to communicate with anyone via technology was almost unbearable."
The student responses to the assignment showed not just that 18-21 year old college students are constantly texting and on Facebook -- with calling and email distant seconds as ways of staying in touch, especially with friends -- but that students' lives are wired together in such ways that opting out of that communication pattern would be tantamount to renouncing a social life.
NEWS: ACCESSED VIA CONNECTIONS WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY
Very few students in the study reported that they regularly watched news on television or read a local or national newspaper (although a few said they regularly read The Diamondback, the University of Maryland student newspaper). They also didn't mention checking mainstream media news sites or listening to radio news while commuting in their cars. Yet student after student demonstrated knowledge of specific news stories. How did they get the information? In a disaggregated way, and not typically from the news outlet that broke or committed resources to a story. "To be entirely honest I am glad I failed the assignment," wrote one student, "because if I hadn't opened my computer when I did I would not have known about the violent earthquake in Chile from an informal blog post on Tumblr."
"Students expressed tremendous anxiety about being cut-off from information," observed Ph.D. student Raymond McCaffrey, a former writer and editor at The Washington Post, and a current researcher on the study. "One student said he realized that he suddenly 'had less information than everyone else, whether it be news, class information, scores, or what happened on Family Guy."
"They care about what is going on among their friends and families and even in the world at large," said McCaffrey. " But most of all they care about being cut off from that instantaneous flow of information that comes from all sides and does not seemed tied to any single device or application or news outlet."
That's the real takeaway of this study for journalists: students showed no significant loyalty to a news program, news personality or even news platform. Students have only a casual relationship to the originators of news, and in fact rarely distinguished between news and more general information.
While many in the journalism profession are committing significant resources to deliver content across media platforms --print, broadcast, online, mobile -- the young adults in this study appeared to be generally oblivious to branded news and information. For most of the students reporting in the study, information of all kinds comes in an undifferentiated wave to them via social media. If a bit of information rises to a level of interest, the student will pursue it -- but often by following the story via "unconventional" outlets, such as through text messages, their email accounts, Facebook and Twitter.
Students said that only the most specific or significant news events -- for example, a medal event at the Olympics -- merited their tuning into to a mainstream outlet. Even news events that students cared about were often accessed via their personal interactions. To learn about the Maryland vs. Virginia Tech basketball game, for example, one student told of "listening to someone narrate the game from a conversation they were having on their own phone" (although he would have preferred watching it on TV) and another student told of calling her father to learn more about the earthquake in Chile.
STUDY BACKGROUND:
The University of Maryland is a large state university campus, and the class, JOUR 175: Media Literacy, that undertook this 24-hour media-free assignment, is a "core course" for the entire student body -- which means it enrolls undergraduate students across majors. It is, in short, a class of 200 students, characterized by a diversity of age, race, ethnicity, religion and nationality. According to the assignment, students had to go media-free for a full day (or had to try to go media-free), but they were allowed to pick which 24 hours in a nine-day period, from February 24-March 4. By coincidence that period saw several major news events, including the earthquake in Chile on February 27, and the close of the Vancouver Olympics on February 28.
According to separately obtained demographic data on the student class, 75.6 percent of the students in JOUR 175 self-identify as Caucasian/White, 9.4 percent as Black, 6.3 percent as Asian, 1.6 percent as Latino, 3.1 percent as Mixed Race and 3.9 percent as Other. Students who self-reported themselves as non-American, said they were from China, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Ethiopia. Women outnumbered men, 55.9 percent to 44.1 percent.
44.1 percent of the class reported that their parents or guardians earned over $100,000 or more; 28.3 percent reported that their parents or guardians earned between $75-$100,000; 22 percent reported coming from a household with an income between $50-75,000; and 5.5 percent reported that their families' income was between $25-50,000.
40.9 percent of the students who responded to the demographic survey reported that they were first-year students, 40.9 percent reported that they were sophomores, 11 percent reported that they were juniors, and 7.1 reported that they were seniors or beyond. Most students reported their ages as between 18-21; the average class age was 19.5.
When asked about what types of media devices they own, 43.3 percent of the students reported that they had a "smart phone" (i.e. a Blackberry or an iPhone), and 56.7 percent said they did not.
Prof. Susan Moeller led the study research team, and the six teaching assistants for the course acted as researchers/authors, conducting a qualitative content analysis of the student responses. Those six TAs, all PhD students in the Philip Merrill College of Journalism, were: Ms. EunRyung Chong, Mr. Sergei Golitsinski, Ms. Jing Guo, Mr. Raymond McCaffrey, Mr. Andrew Nynka and Ms. Jessica Roberts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)