LANCER ON THE STREET

What do you do to de-stress?

“I usually end up hanging out with my friends because they bring out my inner self.”

“I go to the beach. Have co ee by the beach somewhere. Retail therapy always works.”

Textbooks are not e ective as learning mechanisms

used the textbook in an introductory physics class and in a 2004 study, only about 27% of psychology students in the study read their assigned readings, according to an article in the Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges.

There are several reasons that the use of textbooks has slipped out of circulation for many modern college students.

BY EMILY MCGINN EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

As college students, many of us spend hundreds of dollars at the beginning of the semester on textbooks that we will never have the time nor desire to read. Many of us sit through lectures about chapters we have not read yet, and professors sometimes expect (or hope) that we know what they are talking about when, realistically, there is not enough time in our days to finish reading assignments. This structuring of curriculum around textbooks is no longer practical nor e ective in our modern college system.

For decades now, reading textbooks has fallen by the wayside across college campuses. In one 2006 study, less than 40% of students surveyed regularly

First, the amount of reading requested of us is often, frankly, unrealistic in light of other responsibilities. A full class schedule ranges from 13-18 units, which means full-time students are usually enrolled in five to six courses. This means that students can end up with five to six classes’ worth of reading, which we are expected to balance with other significant aspects of life. Many of us have to work at least part-time, since school does not pay us to show up and learn. Pair this with striving to maintain a healthy lifestyle, which requires time set aside for exercise, socializing and adequate rest.

So let’s crunch some numbers. In a 24-hour day, a student should get an adequate amount of sleep (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends at least seven hours), exercise and eat properly (about three hours), go to class (let’s assume three hours each day based on a 15-unit course schedule) and dedicate at least some time to socializing and the smaller aspects of the day, such as getting ready in the morning (about three hours total). This leaves about eight hours to divide between work and studying, but let’s assume a student works 20-30 hours each week in a part-time position. This will require an average 4-6 hours each day for work, leaving 2-4 hours for studying, and this is all assuming nothing unexpected pops up, which often happens in life.

On average, each page of a textbook will take about five minutes to read, according to Cornell College’s website. For a thirty-page reading assignment, then, a student should set aside two and a half hours. Now imagine having these reading assignments for multiple classes, along with a few papers to turn in every week, exams to study for every few weeks and quizzes and weekly assignments to finish up. It is not a surprise that reading, often bumped to the bottom of the to-do list, falls through the cracks.

Aside from time management concerns, textbooks also lack the appeal and value that perhaps they once did. During this modern age of shortened attention spans and in light of new educational studies, textbooks can no longer stand at the center of a class curriculum for many disciplines. One 2019 study found that textbooks did not significantly impact learning progress in reading comprehension in primary education, according to the National Library of Medicine. Also, many textbooks have failed to keep up with the new generation, which tends to excel with visual engagement to maintain interest. When we see large, dense (and often boring) blocks of text about class subjects, we tend to lose interest, making textbook learning ine ective and a waste of time.

Rather, facing the facts that textbooks are largely ine ective can help us make class time more e ective. Learning should occur mostly in class through engaging discussions and lectures that go beyond what is in a textbook and incorporate hands-on, experiential and real-world learning.

I do not want to go to class to be told to read a textbook that I paid for and that I did not have time to read because I was busy working to pay for my expenses. I want to go to class to learn something I can apply to my future. Let’s start learning from life rather than books.

Hard copy books remain superior to e-books even in digital age

you have a new book to read. But is it better to use a Kindle or Nook to read over a physical book? Although online reading is easy and convenient to access, it does not o er the quality time of sitting down and seeing the pages you are reading. There is satisfaction in flipping the pages. Suddenly, one side of the book is heavier than the other, and you experience the accomplishment of almost being done with a book.

reading a physical book. First, they are eye-friendly. Many strain their eyes from reading on the computer or their electronic devices. We already look at our screens all day. If we add e-books to that list, our eyes are doomed to be strained.

BY GABI RIGGIN ASST. A&E EDITOR

Students are aware of audio, digital and even free PDFs of books that can be found while searching for textbooks for a class. Of course, you can go into the library or bookstore for physical copies. Despite the high volume, demand and many benefits that e-books provide, they take away from the satisfying and immersive experience that a physical book provides.

Audiobooks and digital books are convenient to use, as everything is consolidated onto one device. In just two clicks,

There is also the collector aspect of physical books — being able to collect each book and having them aesthetically displayed on a shelf can serve as a hobby and showcase part of one’s identity.

Physical books are timeless. There is nothing like the experience of going into a cute bookstore to see the variety of di erent books, in comparison to scrolling and scrolling endlessly, just like we already do on social media platforms. Physical books allow us to submerge ourselves in an experience without the need for technology. Many benefits come from

Many people think physical books are better than e-books and their reasoning ranged from the appearance down to the smell of the paper, according to paper manufacturer StoraEnso. The survey conducted by StoraEnso concluded that in “March 2022, 65% of respondents wanted physical books, versus 21% who preferred e-books and 14% audiobooks.”

Even in our generation, which is accustomed to the digital age, I am not the only one who enjoys a good, old-fashioned book in my hand because from the ages 16-24: “70% said they preferred physical books over e-books.” And older generations say we Gen Z kids don’t appreciate the little things.

Furthermore, during the pandemic, one of the few positive byproducts that came about was the digital cleanse.

Many people participated in a cleansing of social media since being inside for months on end was beginning to transform us into couch potatoes. Because of this, people turned their attention to reading books as a new hobby to obtain instead of using digital devices.

The study also said “a majority of respondents (63%) said they read more during COVID, including nearly 70% in the UK and the U.S. In the youth segment, 64% said they read more and, notably, 76% of young people in the U.S. and 73% in the UK.”

E-books and audio or digital books may be convenient, especially for the average college student with millions of textbooks to “read.” But, as convenient as it is to have everything one or two clicks away, many people prefer physical copies of books. Hard copies are timeless and can be stored and passed between friends without needing Wi-Fi or account switching. You can read a book without worrying about battery life; it is just you and the books.

“I

French lms trump Hollywood structure

BY ALEXZA BAHNMILLER MANAGING EDITOR

As someone who was introduced to French cinema a mere year and a half ago, I could see how it could sound hypercritical to make the claim that French films are much better than American films. On the other hand, if I’ve seen American films for the past 22 years and was able to come to this conclusion after only a year and a half of experiencing French films, it goes to show how incredibly di erent the two are, further proof that one can indeed be clearly better.

To begin, the most distinguishable di erence between the two is plot. I admit, watching French films for the first time can be exhausting, and I won’t judge if you fall asleep here and there. After all, it can be easy to get bored from watching two hours of pure dialogue in which a guy and a girl discuss love and philosophy and one’s whole world view is flipped upside down, leaving audiences to question their own morals and the meaning of their entire existence on Earth (“My Night At Maud’s” (1969)).

But seriously, it can be dicult to sit back and not be given the usual ‘Hollywood style’ format of a film. This style is known as the five-act structure. Act one involves setting up exposition, the rising action begins in act two, the climax begins to build in act three, act four focuses on the aftermath of the climax and act five finishes the film with resolution, according to the Nashville Film Institute. This structure appears with almost every commercial American film, such as “Casablanca” (1943), “The Godfather” (1972), “Back to the Future” (1985), “The Mask” (1994) and more.

However, in the late 1950s, French filmmakers collectively decided to reject this struc- ture, a movement known as the French New Wave. Thanks to cinema critics such as JeanLuc Godard, François Tru aut and Éric Rohmer, who “pushed against big film studios controlling the creative process,” as a Masterclass article put it, French filmmakers were able to focus on creating what films are meant to be: art. This rejection of a proven-to-be successful structure comes as no surprise as the French were, after all, the first ones to make a film (“Film historians call ‘The Arrival of a Train,’ by the Lumiere brothers, the birth of the medium,” reads an article in The Guardian), so who is going to tell them what to do?

This attitude — one that can’t be bought or sold — is what truly defines the di erence between French and American cinema. The French will make films that tell stories that they feel need to be told, regardless of whether it is ‘exciting’ or ‘expensive’ enough to studios or even audiences. Art shouldn’t be made with marketing as a No. 1 focus, it should be made for the purpose of being thoughtful and, of course, artistic. In my opinion, watching one person walking around and contemplating life as they go through their day (such as in “Cleo from 5 to 7” (1962)), is much more artistic than watching a big-name celebrity go through the same problem-then-solution format again and again. Going against the grain and allowing directors to have complete creative freedom without the fear of studios breathing down their backs ensures that French films right o the bat are going to be more substantial in terms of storytelling.

“Americans go to the movies to be entertained,” wrote Bob Moss, author and film blogger, in his article for Immigrant Magazine. “They do not like having to think a lot as they watch the film and rarely think about its messages or meaning after leaving the theater. European films, however, require constant attention and a good memory. Their goal is to make you think.”

I cannot conclude my argument of French cinema being superior without mentioning the film “Les Enfants du Paradis” (1945) directed by Marcel Carné. “Les Enfants du Paradis” is a perfect film, and if everyone could only watch one film in their entire life, it should be this one. From the mise en scène, to the storytelling and the overall message, it shows what film has the power to do. If new to French cinema, I would suggest viewing “Breathless” (1960), “La Femme Nikita” (1990) or for a newer film, “Lost Illusions” (2021). Just remember one thing: be open-minded.