Rice University’s Student Newspaper — Since 1916

Thursday, April 25, 2024 — Houston, TX

Henry Bair


OPINION 3/9/16 4:25pm

In search of good teachers

A quick glance at the comments students leave in course evaluations reveals that justifications for the high ratings of a professor often concern easily obtained grades, low workloads, a professor’s aptitude for making jokes and a general high entertainment value to the classes. Curiously, the mention of teaching itself is frequently missing. So what does good teaching look like? Being no expert on university teaching, in an attempt to answer this question, I can draw upon only my own experiences.


NEWS 9/23/15 5:30am

An abstraction of being: Seeing Rothko

Perhaps you’ve heard of the name, or perhaps you recognize those monolithic hazy blocks of color. Mark Rothko has long been considered one of the most infl uential artists of the 20th century. An austere earthy-colored painting of his, descriptively titled “Orange, Red, Yellow,” sold for a record price of $86 million in 2012, and remains, to this day, one of the most expensive works of modern art.


OPINION 9/23/15 5:06am

Service as a habit, not an extracurricular

As Rice students, we are repeatedly reminded of the degree to which the university serves the local community. And for the most part, we embrace that reputation happily enough. The barrage of notices about service opportunities and large number of students who volunteer in some form conveniently provide an illusion that perhaps we do all care for those we perceive as disadvantaged and disenfranchised.


OPINION 8/27/15 12:07pm

Approaching classes: The trouble with hoop-jumping

It’s the beginning of a new semester. Among the multitude of excited and eager students, several phrases crop up repeatedly. “I’m taking this class — medical schools love it when applicants have taken it” and “This a super easy filler class — there’s barely any homework” are often tossed around as people settle into their new courses and brag about them over dinner to their friends.These statements typify an attitude toward education that any lover of learning should find troubling. Here we are, at a university with exceptionally few limitations on which classes a student may take, in a country that advocates its liberal approach to education. Yet many of us look at courses not as a platform for examining our intellectual interests, but as entries to fulfil a list of requirements or tools for maximizing our GPAs, that most hallowed of metrics.Most of us know the rhetoric: We are here to learn how to think, and we should strive to think for ourselves and develop our reasoning capabilities through the coursework we choose. Still, I think that deep down, many of us are instead really good at hoop-jumping: We assess a course not so much by how well we think it will enhance our intellects, but by how well we believe we can deduce and adapt to the “formula” for success. We try to answer the question “What does the teacher look for?” rather than “What can I learn from the class?” Sure, we might think for ourselves, but only to appease the professor and earn a satisfactory grade, and only for as long as the course lasts.In other words, we take classes for the most mundanely utilitarian of purposes, to help us attain the grades needed to obtain our first jobs or gain admission into our desired postgraduate schools. These classes satisfy our distribution requirements without being too rigorous. They strike a happy medium between appearing “impressive” and requiring an excessive time commitment. By far the worst offender is the “filler class,” taken because it is apparently the most unchallenging class that fits into one’s schedule and that helps one progress toward graduation.This approach to a class is extremely insolent. It is disrespectful to the professors who devote substantial effort to creating the curriculum and evaluating the assignments; it is disrespectful to other students who take the class out of sincere passion for the material; and most crucially, it fundamentally invalidates the purpose of a university edification by corrupting the honest spirit of academic exploration and intangible merits of education. It is, in summation, profoundly anti-intellectual.Fortunately, not everyone here has this attitude toward education. For those of you who see the challenges of a course as more than the upcoming problem sets, who see the rewards from a class as greater than the sum of all A’s received on the papers written, who see classes as an indispensable segment of the grand lifelong voyage of learning — keep at it.However, maintaining this desirable perspective isn’t always simple. When confronted with a particularly grueling assignment, we may be hard-pressed to consider the enduring benefits to be gained past this immediate task. In moments like these, we would do well to remind ourselves: We are at a time in our lives when our minds are most flexible and receptive to new ideas. We should savour these precious years and the rich humanistic education with which we are being bestowed, and which (as most of us are still vaguely conscious of) is meant not only to make us better doctors, lawyers, consultants and engineers, but also better people. The liberal education we are receiving is a glorious privilege. Why reduce it to a mere credential?The countless hours of reading, writing and problem solving that go into a class allow us to easily forget that the true value of an education lies in cultivating a scholar — a rational and critical thinker — in each of us, something that can hardly be abbreviated into a series of letters. By the time we are into our sixth jobs, the grades we earned here will be nothing more than ink on paper. In contrast, the expansion of our mental fac ulties, sharpened through conscientious reflection on our coursework, will help us lead productive, positive and meaningful lives. As we venture into the new term, remember that we are here to enrich and refine our souls, not to try and trade them for an A.


NEWS 10/28/13 7:00pm

Rice Media Center to show Texas Chain Saw Massacre

On Halloween night, the Rice Media Center will screen The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, with star Marilyn Burns and screenwriter Kim Henkel in attendance.In 1974, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was released. It rapidly gained notoriety for its brutal subject matter, exploitative style and unflinching realism. Today, the film is recognized as a hallmark of both independent filmmaking and the modern horror genre. Directed by Tobe Hooper and written by Henkel, who has lectured at Rice University in the past, the film's defining factor lies not in its excessive gore, but in its gritty authenticity and the unremitting sense of dread with which it fills its audiences.The Thresher recently caught up with Burns and discussed her experiences with the film during production and after the release.Thresher: What was your background prior to the film?Marilyn Burns: I had been in a few minor roles in small projects, playing stand-ins and extras, but not any starring parts. I was at the University of Texas, Austin at the time. Hooper and Henkel held a casting call, and after a little talk and a read-through, I got the part.Thresher: How did the fact that this was an independent production affect filming? Burns: We were all locals. We were kids running around in the wilderness with a chainsaw. We had no fancy production crew or anything. At times during filming, I was thinking, "What the hell am I doing?" It was ridiculous.Thresher: The chainsaw was real?Burns: It was. Gunnar Hansen (who played Leatherface) made carrying the chainsaw look easy. We did take the blade off, but the chain was still going, and that chain can cut you just as easily. Come to think of it, it was really dangerous to have Gunnar chase me through the woods in the night with a functional chainsaw.Thresher: Did anyone get hurt?Burns: Hell yes - all of us. We used real gunpowder in some scenes, and various crew members were injured because of that. In one scene, they used a real knife on my finger without me knowing. The cut and the blood looked so real - because it was - that the filmmakers decided to use the footage. And there was the hammer. In the scene where my head is hit with a hammer, if you thought that was special effects, well, it was a real hammer. When you see the blood on my head, it's real.Thresher: What was the set like?Burns: We were not pampered like modern actors are. We were getting hosed down with Hershey's chocolate syrup, food coloring and dye. In the outdoors, all sorts of critters, mosquitoes and bees were getting stuck to the gunk on me. The syrup hardened in the sun and formed a sticky matte on my hair. We didn't have trailers to rest in. We didn't even have chairs. It was horrible. But I think it added to the film. The misery of the actors on the set gave the film a certain tone and undeniably made the film look more real.Thresher: Looking back on it, how does it feel to be in a cornerstone of film history?Burns: That movie had more color and history and rich stories behind it than any other film. You really couldn't get any more real than what we did. All practical effects were done with a 16-mm camera. Due to the rating system, we couldn't show as much as we'd have liked to. But I think that was better. The terror didn't have to rely on graphic bloodshed, but instead more on audio cues, suspense and psychological torture. In the end, it was a phenomenal experience.The screening of Texas Chain Saw Massacre will take place 7 p.m. Oct. 31 at the Rice Media Center.This interview has been edited for clarity and length.