Teaching Books

This book has a great outline, thought process and good examples on the process of writing history.

This is a great book and I was able to get even more out it since I am one of Dr. Page's students at East Tennessee State.

Richard Marius gives us in this short book an enthusiasm for the pursuit of the past that is simply infectious. Although the work is not an in-depth study of Historiography, it is a great introduction to the would be Historian on the very basic rules of researching and composing a paper on any historical subject.

Marius has written an extremely readable and informative book on the writing of history. He proceeds from showing readers what questions to ask in doing historical research into types of historical writing can be done, from discriptive to argumentitive.
However, the most useful part of the book is the chapter on sources and writing. He skillfully shows readers how to choose a topic and narrow their focus into a managable paper. He also discusses the use of CD-Rom and Internet sources, a necessity for any good book on the writing of history in the early 21st century, particularly due to the increase in the reliance on Internet research by college undergraduates and HS students that are comfortable with this technology. The book also makes actually doing research seem like not such a daunting scary task, which at first thought it seems like for many undergraduates. The one problem with this section is that Marius advocates the use of paper notes. As has been seen with many professional academic historians lately, the use of paper notes can end up costing the writer dearly, particularly with the use of a large amount of sources. Marius should have included a section on how to use a data base or other computerized note taking system.
Marius also uses many examples to back up his points throughout the book, even publishing one complete paper and then commenting on its strengths and weaknesses in order to give the reader a better understanding. The remainder of the book is an extremely useful three chapters on writing mechanics as well as quoting and citing a variety of sources. I found the section on footnotes quite good and useful. This section will be especially useful for the undergraduate who arrives on campus without ever having to use footnotes while in high school.
Overall, this is an outstanding book. The only real drawback is that since its publication (3rd edition) the sections on the Internet are in many ways obsolete. But with the ever changing technology and things available on the Internet, both good and bad, no book can keep up.

History prof recommended this for help in writing research papers in history department.

Compact and inspirational, the author makes his points by way of examples and citations from historians. Passionate about his subject area, he communicates this well and infuses it into his observations and recommendations for writing about historical topics.

While the jury is still out on my first paper to utilize this resource, I already know I am a better writer of history for having utilized this fine resource. Just the idea of grabbing your reader and making him want to read the rest was useful.

This is one of the most helpful texts that I have purchased in the past year. It is easy to read and gives lots of examples as well as many points to ponder. HOWEVER, (if it matters to you)- make sure that you do not get the BOOK ALONE version. There is an online component that you need an access code to, which doesn't come with the book unless you buy the other version (I believe it said "with myeducationlab" in the item description). As a matter of fact, it's cheaper that way by about $8.00 believe it or not. I had to buy access separately because I waited too long to return the one that I bought which was book alone. I guess you have to live and learn... I hope someone benefits from my mistake!

I got this book for a class. It worked great. The book was clean and brand new. Thanks!

Very good reference on how to handle an elementary classroom. Children's environment and temperament were considered. Sample lay-outs included.

Smooth and speedy transaction. Updated emails on the tracking of my purchase were much appreciated. Great buy. Recommended.

"Classroom Management..." is THE book for those who are looking for the proverbial Teacher's Manual. Apart from covering all the basics in a lot of detail, it offers checklists and (so-called) case studies. The downside of this is that the book starts out a bit dry and too straightforward, with instructions so clear-cut you would think they are for operating some sort of machinery. The "case-studies" are examples rather than studies, so the objection here lies with the misnomer. These are clearly minor drawbacks to a great book that only gets better as you read on. With a fabulous Further Reading section after every chapter, and delectable cartoons sprinkled throughout the book, it is an essential text for every teacher's personal library.

Very easy to read. Helpful, practical information. Many chapters with good advice on working with parents. Some information on home visiting. I definately recommend this title.

This book describes what it is like to have Asperger's Syndrome with disarmingly simple language and adorable photos of kittens. Great for kids and adults. An absolutely lovely and well-crafted book!

This book seemed like such a bizarre idea that I just had to own it. But when I read it, I found that the concept worked well. I really enjoyed it, and my mom loved it, too. It does a fairly good job of explaining how Aspies are different, without implying that there's anything wrong with them. I also like how it spoke to the strengths of people with AS. Educational doesn't have to mean totally serious--when people are laughing, they are listening. My only problem with the book is that it only uses male pronouns. A small thing, sure, but most AS resources are targeted towards boys, and it's easy for Aspie girls to feel left out.

I have a 13 year old son who has AS. this book will be very good for younger children who dont quite understand whats going on with them. it was vert well written.

I found this at a Barnes & Noble and I read it then and there from cover to cover. The writing is geared more for elementary-aged children, but the pictures and the text, which compares cat behavior to that of a person with AS, is spot-on, if you want to gently introduce your child (AS or neuro-typical) to this unique condition to help them better understand a schoolmate, friend or even themself. It made me smile and I couldn't help inwardly cheering at how well-done this book is!

Speaking as a late-diagnosed person with AS (I'm 31 and was not diagnosed until I was 27), I gladly reccommend this book!

This is an excellent simple to read book. Very good for young and older people. My sons and I have read many times over. I would recommend to anyone!

As a Texas public school administrator, I highly recommend never spending a moment of your life reading this. There is a much better book called "An Educator's Guide to Texas School Law." If you're a Texas educator, I would buy that book and avoid this one. This is a college text intended for LAW students. I was forced to buy this for a school law class as a part of my administration degree. What a waste of time. It's nothing more than a book full of case law pertaining to public education in the United States. Things your SCHOOL LAWYER should know, but not necessarily you. Your lawyer should summarize and/or you should read a more to-the-point book summarizing it.

Short version: if you're not a LAW student or a LAWYER, this book will do nothing more than bore you to tears.

Item came in brand new condition as advertised. It arrived much faster than expected. I am pleased with my purchased.

I found this book very helpful. It's laid out so you can find what you need quickly and it's thorough. I also found it written in a user friendly language.

This is a compilation of very applicable cases that help the reader understand the legal issues involved in a hands on way. The explanations are clear and concise. It is not an easy read, but it is well done and an excellent resource.

I got this book for my graduate class on School Law. At first, it was VERY intimidating as it was filled with lots of legal jargon and so on, but the book did a good job of making it fairly "easy" to read. (Though I do admit I've slept on the book a few times...) It is well organized by different sections, and the cases as well as their significance are explained clearly. I liked that it presented very straightforward information, with little slant/bias one way or another, leaving it up to the reader to make up their minds. While I was not required to read the book cover to cover for my class, I have tried to do so because I found the information pertinent and informative. It is a great reference, and definitely a book that I'll keep getting as new editions come out.

You Darwinists must feel kind of scary with are new candidate for Vice President being a "Creationist!!!!! Yes the Governor of Alaska is a pro-Life, Creationist. Could this be an "ID"!!!! plot to take over the White House. Heaven forbid, whoops wrong word, Darwin forbid. No that doesn't make sense. I got it. The God DelusionDawkins forbid. No, he's just a delusion, not even an American. I really got it this time. Why don't you guys write her a letter of enlightenment. Before you know it, it's going to get worse. Where do all these people come from that dare have the "audacity" to think for themselves
" Comments by a Guilty Bystander"

The title's "Battle for America's Soul", and the concluding (p.221) "in finding the strength to embrace what evolution tells us about the nature of reality, we will find reward beyond measure. For it is such faith that will ultimately redeem our scientific souls", is very peculiar. The author obviously borrows the concepts of faith, redemption, and soul from religion, although alleged religious claims are the target of "the Battle".

Religious claims encompass the soul, and he strangely appropriates it in his title and conclusion for the object of salvation by evolution, the very theory that proclaims organisms, including humans, as products of physical forces alone and void of any immaterial substance like soul. Likewise, asking for "faith" in evolution is inconsistent with evolution's "actually being true" (same p.221) which controverts the title's "ONLY A THEORY".

The author of course uses religious expressions figuratively, not as commonly understood, attempting to persuade the reader that "The story evolutionary science can tell is grander and more sweeping than any just-so narrative concocted by the pretenders of intelligent design" (p.220). Notice the denigrating language for opponents, and the author indeed casts them in as degrading a light as anyone I know of. He offers various analogies, in one case (p.4) between actions by the Kansas Board of Education in 2000 and fights in Kansas in the 1850s among proslavery and antislavery forces, suggesting that "antievolutionists" (a term he uses persistently for the more accurate "anti-Darwinists") are somehow comparable to slaveholders. Much more; he says (p.168), "proponents of ID ["intelligent design", defending design in organisms, contrasted with Darwinian purposelessness]...seek the undoing of four centuries of Western science". To my knowledge, the opposition is specifically to Darwin's claim of undirected rather than directed forming of organisms, "intelligent design" mostly comprising scientists, who don't want to destroy science but to improve it. Which story is then "concocted" by its "pretenders", as quoted at the top of this paragraph?

Darwin himself, quoted in Darwin's Gift: to Science and Religion, p.31, cites "The old argument of design" and contends: "We can no longer argue that [organisms] must have been made by an intelligent being". The thought that organisms are formed with purpose seems indeed matter of course, and it is natural selection, simulating artificial selection by its "pretenders", that appears "concocted". I tried in these reviews, as well as in On Proof for Existence of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries, to point out that organisms in fact are universally known to act purposely, toward survival, which actual purpose is forgotten in debating the possibility of purpose in organisms' structure. How Darwinians can confuse this evidence with the mechanistic contrivance of natural selection is illustrated by a passage in the book reviewed.

In discussing a parasite causing malaria, the author states: "Evolution has also produced new forms of resistance to [the parasite] within the human population, just as any biologist would predict" (p.66). Predict from what? Such resistance in humans is not developed through purposeless natural selection, requiring countless generations, but through the purposive immune system in individuals. This sort of flawed reasoning occurs throughout the book, not to mention Darwinism.

The author also relies on opinions hardly scientific, like those of judges and journalists, and in general tries to convince the reader and perhaps himself how ridiculous or laughable is the idea of design in organisms, he reflecting the recent barrage of opinions that the design is not quite intelligent. He mocks the designer as maybe creating a new species "in a sudden puff of smoke" and as "not very skillful, since just about everything he creates goes extinct relatively soon..." (pp.50-51). How an all-powerful designer creates a species seems up to him, however. Maybe he does so at the organism's germinal stage, to better suit the inquirer's demands. We still don't know if the egg or the chicken came first. And that every species goes extinct is not so shocking in view of the inevitable death of every individual, which is of more concern to the individual than the eventual extinction of its species. But this too, or any perceived imperfection, is up to the designer, not to the no less imperfect human observer.

Whether the book's author, alongside others, likes it or not, the purpose of preservation is a principal attribute of all living things, whatever the power behind it is wished to be called, and it seems the schemes of this power, incorporating all of nature, are "grander and more sweeping"--to repeat the book's above phrase--than Darwinism's piecemeal accumulation of accidents.

Jerry Coyne the eminent Professor of biology at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution and steadfast critic of ID wrote a review of a book by David P. Mindell called the Evolving World: Evolution in Every Day Life that was published in Nature 8/31/2006, Vol. 442, p983-984. Here is a quote from that article, "...if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvements in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like.' Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all."

I found it also interesting to note that Coyne goes on to state that of the two commercial uses for evolution that he's aware of, one includes the use of directed evolution to produce commercial products such as enzymes to protect crops and plants from herbicides. And we all know that another way of describing directed evolution is with the term Intelligent Design. Yes indeed when it comes to the advances (especially with molecular evolution) that have been attained over the past century it is the application of intelligent design in concert with the development of new methodologies and instrumentation that have guided researchers to their goals.

One would never know that from reading Miller's book. Coyne takes a pragmatic approach with respect to the distinction between micro and macroevolution, noting the irrelevancy of the latter in the pursuance of scientific experimentation. Coyne is cognizant of the fact that whenever examples are cited detailing research instrumental to evolution, they all involve microevolution. Miller on the other hand makes no such distinction. When Miller cites in his book that evolution is the "glue that binds the biological sciences together" he is adamant in his assertion that macroevolution is just as scientifically germane as microevolution, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is the empirical case for macroevolution remains on a shaky foundation, and as Coyne alludes to in his article macroevolution makes no noteworthy contributions when it comes to experimental biology. I doubt that any scientist, even Professor Miller, would conduct any experiments differently if they were under the impression that macroevolution were unequivocally baseless.

Theodisius Dobzhansky's maxim that "nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution," only makes sense when applied to microevolution. As we have seen time and again this is where Darwinism works reasonably well and not only that, most advocates of ID accept microevolution.

Miller acknowledges that NDE has a long uphill battle and is on the defensive. Even though he admits on page 35 that scientists do not know how the flagellum evolved; he reiterates the same worn out stale arguments he used at the Dover Trial to try to refute ID. Hasn't he figured it out that his arguments have been rebutted successfully; they haven't worked in 3 years since that trial, they are not going to work now in this book. He knows he has been losing ground yet he still pursues a failed policy. It doesn't make sense.

That leads me to believe that the purpose of Miller's book is solely for its use as a rallying cry to inflame the passions of the Neo Darwinists in continuing their assault against the Intelligent Design movement. As far as those who are new to the controversy, anyone who objectively reads this book will come away with more questions than answers. Therefore, someone has to fire up votaries of the NDE and for a number of reasons he is the logical choice. He does not let them down. Miller's incendiary rhetoric is best illustrated on page 201, "The partisans of ID are lobbing intellectual napalm into the scientific community, and so great is their enthusiasm for their tactical objectives that they remain oblivious to the fact that nothing will remain but ashes and dust if their attack is successful." What a bunch of metaphoric bombast!

His paranoia is really manifested in Chapter 7 when in citing a change in the definition of science by the Kansas School Board and using skewed rhetoric, Miller was afraid that astrology, paganism, and wiccan healing will fall into the realm of science. What Miller fails to tell you is that by describing science as an open-ended search for more adequate or reliable explanations of the natural world using empirical methods, it implies nothing about the supernatural. Also, Miller advocates teaching all aspects of evolution while discouraging a critical analysis of it. That is not only wrong, it defies common sense and it is antithetical to the goals of education. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with advancing a religious bias as he so paranoiacally suspects.

In short this book can be summed up in one sentence: a desperate attempt at saving and perpetuating macroevolution from the juggernaut of Intelligent Design. It's not going to work. It hasn't worked since the atrocious decision at the Dover Trial and it's not going to work now.

The author, Ken Miller, was one of the expert witnesses for the evolution side in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, and Michael Behe was the main expert for the ID-iots. After reading this book, it's clear why the evolutionists won and why the presiding judge described what the ID-iots had done as "breathtaking inanity."

Scientific theories must be testable, and as Miller points out, ID is not testable in any meaningful way, so ID is not science at all.

ID-iots do propose some testable hypotheses, of course, however those hypotheses are not specifically about ID itself, rather they are about the so-called "limits of evolution." No one seriously disputes that evolution is a scientific theory, so it's not surprising that hypotheses about evolution -- and its alleged limits -- are in fact testable. Unfortunately, as Miller points out, testing the ID-iots' anti-evolution hypotheses shows that those hypotheses are wrong. For example:

1. Behe claims that the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade is irreducibly complex (IC), and therefore needs all of its parts to work. In reality, however, some vertebrates are missing some parts of the cascade, and yet their blood still clots just fine. Even worse for the ID-iots, there is also evidence indicating that key parts of the blood-clotting cascade may actually have evolved from protein domains that: 1) had nothing to do with blood-clotting, and 2) didn't even originate in vertebrates. (pp. 62-66) Ouch!

2. Behe claims that IC systems can't evolve step-by-step, because intermediate stages have no function at all, and therefore cannot be preserved by natural selection. In reality, however, most, if not all of the IC systems that Behe himself proposed, including the bacterial flagellum, have subsets of parts (i.e., intermediate stages) that do have functions. The function of intermediate stages may be, and frequently is, different from the function of the full system; but a function is a function, and if it's beneficial to the organism, then natural selection can preserve it, making it a target for further adaptive modifications. The bacterial flagellum doesn't look at all like a machine designed from scratch and constructed with all new parts, rather it looks just like evolutionists would expect: a conglomeration of spare parts scavenged from here and there, held together with duct tape and baling wire. (pp. 53-62)

3. Behe's famous 10^40 claim in "Edge of Evolution," about the enormous odds against any evolutionary pathway requiring the evolution of two or more protein binding sites is based on a glaring (deliberate?) misrepresentation of the evidence. (pp. 66-69)

4. Dembski claims that intuition tells us that if law can't produce complex specified information (CSI), and if chance can't produce CSI, then a combination of law and chance can't produce CSI either. (p. 39) As Miller points out, however, intuition is not a very reliable standard. After all, intuition is what told humans for millennia that Earth was flat and stationary. (p. 84) Furthermore, computer programs that mimic evolution's mutation-selection process -- which essentially is a combination of law and chance -- routinely produce CSI. (pp. 74-78)

5. Even worse for the ID-iots, Dembski's claim that new genes cannot be produced by natural processes is shattered by evidence that Mother Nature has indeed produced new genes, quite a few times, and fairly recently. And Mother Nature's accomplishment has been replicated under laboratory conditions, thus enabling scientists to actually observe evolution while it was taking place. (pp. 79-82)

Chapter Four deals with fascinating evidence from the field of genomics, using DNA evidence to establish the genealogical links between widely separated species, just as modern courts use DNA evidence to establish genealogical links between parents and their children. DNA evidence is considered conclusive in the courts. There's no reason why it shouldn't be considered conclusive in evolutionary biology.

Chapter Five includes a discussion of embryological evidence that also provides strong support for evolution.

Most of the last half of the book focused on the publicity and political campaigns that ID-iots rely on to promote ID. (If ID-iots spent any time actually doing science, maybe they wouldn't need to rely so heavily on publicity campaigns. Just a thought.)

This is an excellent book, very accessible, even for laymen.

This is a surprisingly engaging effort by Mr. Miller. Reading Only a Theory is akin to watching a captivating movie filled with intriguing special effects, robust characters , and a suspenseful plot ... with twists, turns, and Olympic hurdles!

For years I have been grappling with the question: Which came first, the chicken or the proverbial egg? You can not imagine my delight when I discovered Only a Theory ... a book about Intelligent Design (ID) Theory versus Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and the ultimate question for scientific and religious scholars: How did my Persian cat and the rest of mankind get here?

My original game plan in writing reviews was to adhere to this philosophy: Stay far, far away from politics, sports, and religion (they are too controversial and someone always loses). In spite of my past convictions, I find myself writing a review on a book that manages to make sport of politics, and religion. A trifecta! However, everyone from students to scholars ... will enjoy this marvelous treat from Kenneth Miller.

If you like imaginative courtroom drama, Perry Mason can't hold a candle to the final closing arguments (the book is based upon this trial). It takes place in the quaint town of Dover, Pennsylvania. Biology Professor, Kenneth Miller, (Brown University) was one of the expert witnesses at the trial. He had the jury, judge, and me ... intrigued by his take-no-prisoners testimony.

My favorite section is when testimonies from both sides explore the bio chemical systems (of which the body produces thousands). These machine-like marvels of nature control thousands of functions in perfect symmetry, harmony, and precision. They are called "bacterial flagellum". (I remember the name because they remind me of my ex wife, but I digress). If you liked Movies featuring The Terminator (starring Arnold Schwarzenegger) and The Transformers (starring Shia LaBeouf), you will be enthralled by these beauties.

In the end both sides won some points (in my opinion). There are still gaps in both theories in which proponents say: Trust me. Only a Theory should be a valuable addition to any library. You will love it. Trust me!
Reviewed by Reggie Johnson, President, Success-Tapes.Com

This book is inceribly informative - if you've never met, been, heard of or seen a college student. I suppose if you've spent 20 years living in a remote village on another continent you might find some of this interesting.

"Nathan" violates professional standards and common decency to discover such shocking things as: students relish independence and like to have fun, foreign students find Americans individualistic and parochial, and college campuses have many different activities.

In other words, "Nathan" (hopefully) wrecked her career to produce a devastatingly useless book.

I came across this book by accident - I am glad I did. It fit with various themes that had been bouncing around in my head since I read a report on student intellectual life at the school where I work. "Prof. Nathan" does a good job in documenting the enormous gap between the experience of college for faculty, administrators and students. Put quite simply, we inhabit different worlds. I think many college professors and administrators already know this, but "Nathan" puts some meat on the speculative bones. (Note on a pet peeve of mine: for "Nathan," as for many of the professoriate, staff - the non-student, non-faculty denizens of AnyU - never register on her radar.)

"Nathan," in her student guise, learns some interesting lessons. For example, "building community" - in the sense of trying to create spaces and opportunities for large groups of students to interact - is much more important to "Student Affairs" types than it is for the students for whom they are trying to build that community. In fact the students are very content with the community they already have, usually consisting of small homogeneous groups of friends that they met early on in their college life. The frenetic work of RA's to create opportunities for broader civic engagement usually come to naught - few students register interest, even fewer actually participate.

I don't know enough to say that "Nathan's" experiences at a large southwestern public school are representative of the experiences of today's college students in general. I am guessing that there probably are significant differences from college to college (e.g. by size of institution), and from student to student (e.g. their economic circumstances, or the degree to which they have a major or a professional destination in mind). But I think the perplexing refusal of students to "buy in" to the experience that well-intentioned faculty and SA administrators have crafted for them will resonate with many campus "adults."

I think that most students, as "Nathan's" experience demonstrates, do not experience college as the linear experience of intellectual and moral development that most faculty and administrators would want it to be. The four years of undergraduate study are less a progressive dinner than a smorgasbord of varied offerings, in which some items are eaten - as "Nathan" relates - only because they are available in a convenient time-slot. Should we be surprised? If nothing else, isn't it arguably a preview of what most graduates can expect after college? Do most college faculty and staff experience their college work - or their lives in general - as a mapped-out journey towards a defined end?

Overall assessment: a stimulating read. Recommended.

Rebekah Nathan is a professor at North Arizona University and she is the author of "My Freshman Year". In her book, she talks about her experiences working on her undercover project while attending a college as an undergraduate. Not only did she enroll in classes and join organizations, but she also signed up to live in the dorms, because thorough her book you can clearly see that Mrs. Nathan is doing her best to find out what is happening with the young generations. The main objective of the experiment was to infiltrate the minds of freshman teenagers to find out what has changed over the last 20 years of college and to learn about their interests.

Nathan calls the university she enrolled in "AnyU" where she was a faculty member. One of Nathan`s main targets was to learn about how young people get along, and most importantly what motivates them to keep going. Even though it sounds exiting to go back to college after graduating, can you imagine moving from your house to a small dorm? Mrs. Nathan tells us in the book what she is feeling throughout her experience, so you can sense when she is depressed or having a difficult time.

Another important issue that she touched on is that there is an outstanding cultural separation. She describes the relations between white people and other ethnicities as marginal and vague because white kids mostly related to other white kids. As a consequence, foreign students that come from different parts of the world to learn about the culture and relate to the people are not given the chance to do so as they hoped. So finally they end up hanging out with people from their same or common roots.

Rebekah Nathan describes her experience at AnyU as unique and special. She remarks that it is an outstanding experience that few people, especially at her age, have the opportunity to share. The book intends to relay a message to the readers, and it is that college education is indeed highly important for personal success, but the college experience, as she describes, is most important since young students develop character and discipline. This is a great book, which is not only intended for college students but also for adults who are curious about what is going on nowadays at universities.

In the published ethnography My Freshman Year, author Rebekah Nathan describes her findings about the practices, priorities, and attitudes of the new generation college freshmen. Her detailed observations are fascinating, although they may be quite obvious to college students that have been freshman in the recent past. Her study offers insight for all those who are unaware about the behavior of college freshman: why they don't seem to take their classes as seriously as before, what freshman girls talk about in their intimate conversations, who eats with whom in the dining center, and the honest answers and opinions she receives from her one-on-one interviews. Nathan's primary research method was observation, but she also interviewed a wide range of students, and posted questions in the girls' bathroom for them to respond to anonymously. Living in the dormitories, Nathan found that the cultural norm of students was one of sociability, individualism, fun, craziness, freethinking spontaneity, and rebellion against authority. This observation contrasted starkly with the formal culture of the college, which stressed advice, academics, and warnings. In regards to student academic life, she noticed that students planned and organized their class schedules and extracurricular activities around what was most important to them. Nathan goes behind the scenes by taking classes and living in the dorms. She educates the reader in depth, and finds information that current freshman students find fascinating. Particularly interesting is what the international/foreign exchange students think of American students. It points out that current American college students should take another look at themselves and also their society. For anyone who wants to learn more about today's college freshmen, I recommend My Freshman Year.
-F.T., N.O., M.C.

My Freshman Year by Rebekah Nathan is a good idea for an ethnography project, in terms of what the author did, but it falls short of what could have been a better book. Rebekah Nathan, an anthropology professor at ANYU, disguising herself as freshman student after 15 years of teaching. She stayed at the dorms, attended classes, and lived the life of a freshman student in search of her questions. Throughout this book, she searches for answers to her questions of why her students act a certain way, such as, not preparing for class, eating in class, and making little effort to get to know exchange students. The book is organized into two main parts. The first half, Nathan describes the student life in the dorm and the second half, shows the student's classroom behavior. Although Nathan presented many truths about college students, there were many places where, do to it being her job, misinterprets those facts.

Life in the dorms surprised Nathan due to student's willingness to decorate their doors and how students want a sense of community in the dorm, but is not willing to give up their personal time for it. She was also shocked by the language, unfamiliar to those outside of the education system, that the students used, which, she even referred to as a foreign language. Going to class, she found that many students do not read the material for class unless it appears on an exam, almost everyone at some point has cheated or has seen someone cheat on an exam, abide by unwritten classroom rules, and does not do what is not necessary. While these revelations are amusing and accurate to an extent, most college students are already aware of the behaviors and it is not necessarily a new finding. Perhaps it is because we, college students, experience this daily so our own bias makes it feel as if it was generalized. However, when she points out that studying old tests is considered as cheating, she crosses over the line on what cheating is really defined as. Truths such as looking over at a neighbor's test is where Nathan is correct, but she goes well beyond the definition and that is the reason why she misinterprets the facts.

Nathan generalized her points by taking a small sample of students and accounted them for the whole university which can lead to inaccurate results. For example, she claimed that students write papers in the direction that goes along with what the professor wants to hear rather than what they believe. Students feel that writing against what the professor wants to hear will result in a poor grade. But not all students write papers on the stance that will please their professor. Nathan makes a poor statement and it sounds more like students do not have their own opinions in a class room. Another example is that Nathan made many claims regarding student's behaviors in the class through a student perspective, but she rarely provides information through a professor's perspective. So the readers do not have the point of a view of why a professor that has taught 15 years at the university can be puzzled by the culture of the students that she interacts with everyday.

Nathan also did not show the variety of students such as the example of a successful student with time management skills. Instead, she showed only the bad side of students since she only discusses student's bad habits such as skipping, cheating, and not completing all the assigned homework. Since the book is biased, it is not useful as there is flawed data and can also damage the view on college students. Generally parents, professors, and the general public will read this and may get the sense that all college students show their bad side. For the book to be accepted, there should have been more coverage of the successful sides of students rather than all the bad sides, that way the book will not seem as biased.