BLOG #11 Part 1

My ideal university is as such:

You start off in college with or without a major selected. Most students know generally what interests them, or at least what they like or son't like when it comes to subject matter. Two different general paths can be selected from the beginning of my four year university. The first is for those who know what they want to do, in which they take classes pertaining to only their major and have an unlimited amount of electives they can take if they so choose. The general education does not repeat what class subjects students took in high school unless the student so chooses, but instead offers new ones that weren't offered in high school so that a student without a clue as to what they want to do can try out new things. Also a general class should be taken by these students in which they explore the different types of jobs from taking trips to companies or trying them out themselves. With these paths, the curriculum is pretty much established. Within certain majors there should be job classes so that students can see what different types of jobs there are and work actively in them briefly so that they can get taste of different jobs in their major. Then take classes that will help them learn the material for their concentration. Each student should take a certain amount of credits in their majors. Minors should work the same way, just with less credits needed to achieve it. Overall workload for each class should stay minimal so that you can get alot of work but only if every class issues an assignment.

Thats acedemics, as far as sports and vacations, they should all be the same. The only exception I can think of is that we should get all major and federal holidays off.

No classes before 9 am. none after 4 pm. Everything else I do like about college. I think that acedemic standpoint is the only thing i really have criticism for.

BLOG #10

The top tshirt is is one I wouldn't want to see worn. He is wearing different articles of clothing than he would have worn and I think of this shirt as more a parody than the other one. There is no halo and we see Jesus as just being another guy. I think the one of the second shirt is different because the text is different and the way Jesus is presented as divine again is different. I feel like he second shirt would be worn more by christians than the others. I am and christian and actually own the second shirt, but I don't consider it to be a parody at all, just that I consider my relationship with Jesus something to show off and not to hide, and also that i consider it to be a personal relationship.

Paul Mitchell mentions that he thinks these shirts are parodies of the christian faith and he is upset when he sees christians who wear them. However, I view it differently. He also says that Christians want " to show the world that yes, I'm different," but he does not view these shirts that way. I think of these shirts, at least the second of the two to be a way to show a relatinshio with Jesus or that " I'm different."

If the first design only contained the text and no image, I would view it differently becuase it is making the same statement as the other shirt, just without a visual that is somewhat offensive. The second shirt, I believe my opinion would be the same.

I think he way the first shirt is set up is more of a parody and sending a rhetorical message that is more moking of Jesus than the other. The first shirt shows Jesus dressed in more modern clothing, the text is above him and his gesture are all something someone today would be wearing and doing. The second shirt is showing Jesus above the text, and the text less sloppy, and Jesus with a halo and attire that he might have actually worn. This, for me, shows him as he was, rather than a version of a mockery of him today, as in the other shirt.