LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Coverage wrongly blamed Bowman

To the Editor: Putting Ira Bowman's last shot on the front page with the caption "The missed shot cost the Quakers the game and ended a 48-game league winning streak" does little justice to Bowman's performance this season. The Dartmouth game was not Bowman's best game (although he did pull down nine rebounds and score 12 points), but blaming our loss on him is grossly misplaced. The two time-outs called by Dartmouth while Bowman was at the line probably iced him; it would have iced anyone. The Dartmouth coaching staff was psyching him out, and we should have found a way of countering it and helping Bowman relax. Since I was not in the huddle with the team, I would not know what was said during the two time outs, but it was not enough to relax Bowman to make his shots. Bowman should not be bearing the weight of our loss by himself, and I can't see how his finesse as a player can be jeopardized by one unfortunate game. After losing the five starters, I would like to remind all the fans who quickly jumped off the Quaker bandwagon after our loss to Dartmouth that we owe a large part of our 6-1 Ivy League record to Ira Bowman. Very little was said about our 77-63 win over Harvard or Bowman's career performance against Harvard where he had 29 points, 11 rebounds, four assists and three steals. Instead, the DP published a front-page feature on Penn's loss to Dartmouth and promptly pointed to Bowman as the reason for end of The Streak. Giving so much attention to our loss and so little attention to our successes is disrespectful to Ira Bowman as well as to the team as a whole. The Streak was a novel notion; the real thing is the Big Dance. Sung Gwak College '97 Comm major responds to critic To the Editor: In his column, Tom Nessinger sets out to prove why Annenberg graduate students do not have it so good, yet he only succeeds in making broad, incorrect generalizations about undergraduate Communications majors ("Treated like royalty?," DP, 2/13/96). Perhaps Nessinger should have spoken to some undergraduates or sat in on an undergraduate class instead of basing his column on some quotes on the 34th Street article "Communication Breakdown" (2/1/96) and his own misconceptions. In contrast to what Nessinger believes, the major complaint of most undergrad Comm majors is not the selectivity of the major. The selectivity should provide majors access to classes of their choice, smaller seminars at the upperclass level and better relationships with professors. However, the cap on the major has provided no benefits for students accepted to the program. Not even senior majors are afforded the luxury of getting into classes of their choice, or taking small lectures or seminars. Each semester, very few undergraduate Communications courses are offered, which leads to large, crowded classes that are almost impossible to enroll in, even for upperclass majors. As a result, senior majors are often forced to take large intro classes, covering material they have spent four years learning, just to complete major requirements. As for access to professors, Nessinger is again off the mark. I am well aware that Penn is a research university. (And, in contrast to Nessinger's beliefs, I knew this before applying to the University.) However, I have had professors in many different disciplines who have been involved in research projects and have still been accessible to me and other students, unlike those in the Annenberg School. It is no secret that the undergraduate Communications major was an afterthought, but this is not an excuse for the ambivalence of professors to their undergrads. No one is asking for "10 hours of office time," but it would be nice to feel that professors are interested in all of their students. While all professors hold office hours, they often leave students with the impression that they are not interested in teaching undergrads and have no interest in meeting with them. If Nessinger really feels that "the undergraduate, for the most part, is not expected to be a productive member of academic society," then he has obviously not met many undergraduate Communications majors. I know of a number of students who have worked with Annenberg professors on research projects, and who have brought a great deal of intellectual insight to their courses. While we may not be expected to produce, as Nessinger claims, are we also unworthy of receiving a quality education in our field of interest? I am sorry if I am being "unrealistic" in expecting to take interesting classes in Communications that don't all cover the same thing, taught by professors who have an interest in teaching undergraduates. I was just after a well-rounded education. Renee Fishman College '97 New Wharton logo unimaginative To the Editor: The new Wharton logo is a disgrace ("Wharton adopts a 'bolder and cleaner' logo," DP, 2/12/96). The current one, or the one that it is replacing (the one with the flying "W"), is actually the only good thing associated with Wharton. Everything else sickens me. No, I am not jealous of you degenerates, I do not envy you. The loss of the former, artistic logo is genuinely saddening. The new logo is bland and banal, just like the students who infest Steiny-D (yippy!!!). Maybe that's the point. Ravi Gandhi College '97