Back on February 9th, I was escorted by the principal out of my building. At the doors, without really looking at me, he said, "Someone from the district will contact you when a decision has been reached." On February 22nd, the superintendent read a press release at the school board meeting that not only stated untruths (the bit about my so-called attacks on special needs students; see "Below the Belt Tactics" post) and indicated that a formal decision would be reached while I was out on maternity leave, but also that, by my own actions, I had made it impossible to teach in the district. (Read the entire press release)
Apparently, they've had a change of heart.
However, I was not contacted by district regarding my status. I had to contact them.
First, I had to call the district number 5 times. The first time, when I opted for 0 to talk to an operator, the phone rang and rang. I tried again with the same results. On the third call, I tried to dial by name. Apparently the Director of Human Resources must get a lot of annoying calls, so he's not even in the directory. On the fourth call, I tried accessing him through the department listings. Only, when I chose Human Resources, I had to listen to a long message instructing job candidates on how to access information on the Internet; there was ultimately no option to talk to this man or another human. Finally, I tried the operator route again and got a human. She connected me to Herr Director's secretary, but I only got that woman's voicemail.
Second, though I'd gone to all of that trouble and left a message before noon, I didn't get a return call until this morning around 11:15. (I suspect, perhaps, that the fact that there was a board meeting last night may have had something to do with the delay, though there's no way to be sure.)
Third, the call was ridiculous.
It went something like this:
HR: I'm returning your call.
ME: I called yesterday to find out about my job status because I was told that someone from the district would contact me when a decision had been reached, but I still haven't heard anything.
HR: You haven't heard from the district?
ME: Not about my job status.
HR: I was under the impression that you'd received several pieces of mail from your school but hadn't responded to them.
ME: I received a tentative schedule--which could mean nothing other than you being sure you've kept your ducks in a row in case you brought me back--and I received an evaluation that also means nothing regarding my job status. Was I to be a mind-reader and assume that these items meant that I have a job to come back to, after I was told I'd be contacted about the results of the suspension decision?
HR: Those are indicative that you have a position to return to. As far as I'm concerned, you've been out on maternity leave.
ME: Let's not pretend that my leaving was a normal occurrence. I've been on maternity leave before, and there was no question that I'd be back after that.
HR: Well, you're on maternity leave now.
ME: The fact that you're acting now as though my confusion over my job status is silly--when my inquiry is after my union attorney attempted to find out my status and was informed that only I could find out--, and when we both know that this was not a simple case from the onset, is just preposterous. If you take the maternity leave out of the equation, any person who had been suspended would need to be informed of whether they were no longer suspended, and you know it.
HR: Well, you do have a job. Hopefully this clears things up. If you have further questions you can contact your principal. Do you have any further questions for me?
ME: Yeah. Can I get a transfer to another building?
HR: At this late stage? I don't think so. You'll be in the same place.
And there you have it.
All innocence. How silly of me not to have realized that these documents meant something definitive and were not just a means of making sure that the district would be covered if they had to have me back. How foolish of me not to have connected the dots. Only, had they determined that they were firing me, and I'd just shown up to set up my classroom thinking that these 2 innocuous documents meant that I was no longer suspended, they would have said, "Wait. What are you doing here? That schedule was tentative. We said you'd get notified when a decision was made! We didn't change your status-- you're still suspended!"
In my mind--and, I'm pretty sure, most any reasonable person's--if one is suspended, at the end of that suspension--whether it ends with a termination or a reinstatement--one should receive a formal letter saying something like:
Dear Suspended Person:
This letter is to inform you that your suspension is over. You are expected to report back to work on X date. Please contact X person to complete X paperwork.
Sincerely,
District Official
But I received no such letter, and was instead made to call to find out my job status, and then made to feel as though I was some sort of dolt for not being a mind reader. For whatever reason, it feels like the games are continuing; I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at this juncture.
In any case, according to the tentative schedule, I'll be back at the same building, teaching almost entirely the same classes I taught before (except for one new elective addition).
On the bright side, I've really missed Macbeth.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
What Are We Really Compromising?
I wrote this blog post back in the middle of June--and if blogger is the same as it used to be, it might even show that post date when I hit "publish," even though it's now July 19th-- but I ended up holding off on posting it because I hadn't had a chance to vote on the contract yet, I was in the process of getting answers to a few questions about it, and because I wasn't sure if part of my issues with the contract were because I still have a bad taste in my mouth about everything that's happened since February. However, in re-reading it tonight (about a month later), I still feel the same way as I did when I wrote it, so I'm posting it.
For the record, this contract was accepted by both our teacher's union, and the school board, so it reflects the contract we ended up getting.
Part of my issue at the time I wrote it--and something that still bothers me a bit--was that, as a union, we were encouraged to vote to accept it; we were told that it was likely the best we were going to get with the current economic climate, and that it was a decent contract under the circumstances. Now, I believe that our union wouldn't try to guide us down a bad path, so if they said this was the best we were going to get, maybe it really was. But then, another part of me thought: that's bollocks. We're wussing out. I felt sort of let down and out of the loop. I understand they can't keep all of the members in on every stage of negotiations for myriad reasons, but not knowing what went on behind the scenes and what was tossed out and compromised and all of that during the process requires a lot of trust. And frankly, if this is the best we could get, that's kind of sad.
The mediator's report for the possible new teacher contract was released last night at the school board meeting. It was the first I'd seen it because, despite being a union member in good standing, since I'm out on maternity leave (and, if not that, then I'd still be out on suspension), I apparently don't get to know about anything going on with the negotiations unless I seek out the information. Plus, I only get to know what the newspaper shares with the public, as if this isn't my own contract that's in question here.
Regardless, of what I do know about it, I have some serious concerns.
First, there's way too much in the way of pay freezes, and too slow a movement upward in the pay salary. We've already been frozen this year, and people would continue to be frozen until a pay increase in July 2012. Then there's another freeze for 18 months. In a time when, at the least, the superintendent is still receiving bonuses and cost of living increases, and merit pay, and an annuity and car allowance and the like--and who is decidedly NOT frozen--it seems quite unfair and ridiculous that so many people are being asked, nay, expected to take freezes and cuts.
Second, there's an increase to health insurance costs which are supposed to go into effect this July. It seems only fair that, if teachers aren't getting salary increases, they shouldn't have their premiums raised until they're making more money.
Thirdly, and what seems the most glaringly problematic to me, was the proviso that teachers' salaries will be frozen if they receive an 'unsatisfactory' on their annual evaluations, and that 2 'unsatisfactory' ratings result in termination. It seems like an awfully easy way to save money if there's a district shortfall, or to get rid of teachers who are at the top of the pay scale (or who are thorns in the district's sides). After all, these evaluations are pretty subjective. I do not doubt that it would happen. In fact, I happen to know of places where it HAS happened.
Don't get me wrong--I don't have a problem with evaluations. Pretty much everyone in the world is subject to evaluations--students in school, people in the work world--I get it. It's a good check to be sure everyone is still sharp. But to tie the pay to it when the district is constantly trying to save a buck, and to have the fingers of the upper level admin (aka, building admin) performing those evaluations, sounds like a recipe for a whole bunch of new teachers coming in at the lowest level of the pay scale. To me, agreeing to this is weakening our already-weak stance, and opening the door to a place that we don't want to be.
Some district official tried to say this is the opposite of merit pay, because it penalizes teachers for poor performance. Bull. Semantics.
The public touts the importance of teachers doing things with students in mind. They say it should be all about the students. But, I ask, what about the teachers' lives and livelihoods? Should they be doing their jobs for next to nothing? Should they have to worry about providing for their own families? No matter how many teachers love the students and want what's best for them and love what they do, it IS still a job, after all, and something for which they should be compensated fairly. And, though unions tend to get a bad rap, there is a need for them in some industries. Why? Because there needs to be some ability to collectively bargain so they don't end up working for peanuts. Teachers aren't trying to bilk the system. They're just trying to--like every other worker in the free world--get compensated fairly for their work.
This contract as proposed has elements in it that move toward taking away those rights. I'm very concerned that through our effort to compromise, we are compromising ourselves.
For the record, this contract was accepted by both our teacher's union, and the school board, so it reflects the contract we ended up getting.
Part of my issue at the time I wrote it--and something that still bothers me a bit--was that, as a union, we were encouraged to vote to accept it; we were told that it was likely the best we were going to get with the current economic climate, and that it was a decent contract under the circumstances. Now, I believe that our union wouldn't try to guide us down a bad path, so if they said this was the best we were going to get, maybe it really was. But then, another part of me thought: that's bollocks. We're wussing out. I felt sort of let down and out of the loop. I understand they can't keep all of the members in on every stage of negotiations for myriad reasons, but not knowing what went on behind the scenes and what was tossed out and compromised and all of that during the process requires a lot of trust. And frankly, if this is the best we could get, that's kind of sad.
The mediator's report for the possible new teacher contract was released last night at the school board meeting. It was the first I'd seen it because, despite being a union member in good standing, since I'm out on maternity leave (and, if not that, then I'd still be out on suspension), I apparently don't get to know about anything going on with the negotiations unless I seek out the information. Plus, I only get to know what the newspaper shares with the public, as if this isn't my own contract that's in question here.
Regardless, of what I do know about it, I have some serious concerns.
First, there's way too much in the way of pay freezes, and too slow a movement upward in the pay salary. We've already been frozen this year, and people would continue to be frozen until a pay increase in July 2012. Then there's another freeze for 18 months. In a time when, at the least, the superintendent is still receiving bonuses and cost of living increases, and merit pay, and an annuity and car allowance and the like--and who is decidedly NOT frozen--it seems quite unfair and ridiculous that so many people are being asked, nay, expected to take freezes and cuts.
Second, there's an increase to health insurance costs which are supposed to go into effect this July. It seems only fair that, if teachers aren't getting salary increases, they shouldn't have their premiums raised until they're making more money.
Thirdly, and what seems the most glaringly problematic to me, was the proviso that teachers' salaries will be frozen if they receive an 'unsatisfactory' on their annual evaluations, and that 2 'unsatisfactory' ratings result in termination. It seems like an awfully easy way to save money if there's a district shortfall, or to get rid of teachers who are at the top of the pay scale (or who are thorns in the district's sides). After all, these evaluations are pretty subjective. I do not doubt that it would happen. In fact, I happen to know of places where it HAS happened.
Don't get me wrong--I don't have a problem with evaluations. Pretty much everyone in the world is subject to evaluations--students in school, people in the work world--I get it. It's a good check to be sure everyone is still sharp. But to tie the pay to it when the district is constantly trying to save a buck, and to have the fingers of the upper level admin (aka, building admin) performing those evaluations, sounds like a recipe for a whole bunch of new teachers coming in at the lowest level of the pay scale. To me, agreeing to this is weakening our already-weak stance, and opening the door to a place that we don't want to be.
Some district official tried to say this is the opposite of merit pay, because it penalizes teachers for poor performance. Bull. Semantics.
The public touts the importance of teachers doing things with students in mind. They say it should be all about the students. But, I ask, what about the teachers' lives and livelihoods? Should they be doing their jobs for next to nothing? Should they have to worry about providing for their own families? No matter how many teachers love the students and want what's best for them and love what they do, it IS still a job, after all, and something for which they should be compensated fairly. And, though unions tend to get a bad rap, there is a need for them in some industries. Why? Because there needs to be some ability to collectively bargain so they don't end up working for peanuts. Teachers aren't trying to bilk the system. They're just trying to--like every other worker in the free world--get compensated fairly for their work.
This contract as proposed has elements in it that move toward taking away those rights. I'm very concerned that through our effort to compromise, we are compromising ourselves.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Blueberry-Cranberry Bread Pudding with Blueberry Sauce & Fresh Whipped Cream
As it's the summer and I have some time on my hands, I've been trying out some new recipes with varying degrees of success. (Or, rather, I should say, with varying degrees of tastiness. They were all a "success" in that they were prepared properly, but some tasted like ass.) I made a cucumber-lychee gazpacho (as seen on Aarti Party), but I didn't really prefer the texture or the flavor (though the feta-paprika crostinis that went atop it were nice). I also tried pickling some watermelon rind because I saw competitors serve it up on Chopped several times and I loved the idea of not throwing out the rind. As it were, it stunk up my house and tasted as bad as it smelled. Yick! (On the bright side, I realized just how substantial my spice collection is--got to use quite a few I've never touched before.)
Last night, though, I finally "hit" with blueberry-cranberry bread pudding with a blueberry sauce and fresh whipped cream. I tasted a bite right out of the oven and was sad to have to wait until today to have a full portion. This afternoon, it was a big hit with my extended family, and it is at their urging that I'm sharing the recipes. I would like, of course, to credit the sources of the recipes (which I modified slightly and will be sharing the recipes as I made them): Robert Irvine (for the base of the bread pudding), Ina Garten (for the whipped cream), and Sherri Eldridge's Best of Blueberries (Harvest Hill, 1997-- for the sauce).
![]()
Blueberry-Cranberry Bread Pudding
1 loaf brioche bread (I used Wegman's Red, White, and Blue Bread, a 15 oz brioche-based loaf with dried cranberries and blueberries in it, topped with sugar. $5/loaf)
4 tablespoons butter, melted
Last night, though, I finally "hit" with blueberry-cranberry bread pudding with a blueberry sauce and fresh whipped cream. I tasted a bite right out of the oven and was sad to have to wait until today to have a full portion. This afternoon, it was a big hit with my extended family, and it is at their urging that I'm sharing the recipes. I would like, of course, to credit the sources of the recipes (which I modified slightly and will be sharing the recipes as I made them): Robert Irvine (for the base of the bread pudding), Ina Garten (for the whipped cream), and Sherri Eldridge's Best of Blueberries (Harvest Hill, 1997-- for the sauce).
Blueberry-Cranberry Bread Pudding
1 loaf brioche bread (I used Wegman's Red, White, and Blue Bread, a 15 oz brioche-based loaf with dried cranberries and blueberries in it, topped with sugar. $5/loaf)
4 tablespoons butter, melted
4 eggs, beaten
1 cup whole milk (*I didn't have whole milk on hand, so I used 3/4 cup of 2% milk mixed with 1/4 cup light cream--it worked)
1 cup condensed milk
1/2 cup sugar
1 tsp vanilla extract
Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
Slice the bread into 1 inch cubes. (Most recipes call for day-old or stale bread. If you want to use fresh bread, you can dry your bread cubes out in the oven--15 minutes in a 325 degree oven. I did this for my pudding. Please note, however, that if you are using bread with sugar on top--like the Red, White, and Blue loaf I used--make sure the sugar side isn't against the pan; the sugar will burn. I had to trim a few bits off, but thankfully it didn't do too much damage. Also, in this case, I don't think I really needed to do this step; I think the fresh bread would have worked fine.) Toss with the melted butter and set aside.
Meanwhile, in a medium-sized bowl, combine the eggs, milks, sugar, and vanilla until well-mixed.
Pour mixture atop the bread cubes. Gently press them into the liquid and allow to sit for 5-10 minutes, to absorb the goodness. (This is a good time to clean up a bit.)
Pour the bread mixture into a buttered oven-proof dish (I used a 2.5qt square). Bake at 350 degrees for 45 minutes, or until the center springs back when you press on it.
Serve warm. Store extra in refrigerator.
Makes 6-8 servings.
Blueberry Sauce
1/2 cup water
1/2 cup sugar
2 tbsp corn starch
1/8 tsp (a "pinch") salt
2 cups blueberries
1 tbsp lemon juice
1 tsp lemon zest
Combine water, sugar, salt, and starch in a small saucepan. Heat on medium heat, stirring frequently until liquid boils and thickens. (It happens sort of suddenly and you'll notice little gelatinous strings appear. Then it becomes even more jellified--that's when it's ready.) At this point, add the blueberries and stir, bringing to a boil. Simmer for about 5 minutes. (The blueberries will break down a little and make the sauce, but some will remain whole.) Stir in the lemon juice and zest, then remove from heat. Let sauce cool slightly before using.
Spoon sauce over bread pudding.
Sauce can be served warm or cold, and is a great topping for ice cream or waffles, too! (Store extra in the refrigerator.)
Makes about 2 cups.
Fresh Whipped Cream
1 pint heavy whipping cream (keep in coldest part of fridge until ready to use--the colder the better!)
1 tbsp sugar
1 tsp vanilla
In a deep glass or metal bowl (preferably one that's been in the freezer for 15 minutes, though I skipped that step), use a hand mixer (or a stand mixer) to beat the whipping cream until thick. While you can, of course, whisk by hand, I wouldn't recommend it unless you've got incredible stamina and strong arms! (As you beat it, the cream will bubble up a lot and you'll wonder when it will come together. Around that time, you'll notice it thickening. It takes a couple of minutes, so hang in there.)
Once it is thick, add the sugar and vanilla and continue to beat for a bit longer, until cream forms stiff peaks.
Don't over beat, or it'll separate.
Serve chilled. Store in the coldest part of fridge.
___________
I wish you success with this recipe. It's great for dessert, but could also make a decadent breakfast.
Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
Slice the bread into 1 inch cubes. (Most recipes call for day-old or stale bread. If you want to use fresh bread, you can dry your bread cubes out in the oven--15 minutes in a 325 degree oven. I did this for my pudding. Please note, however, that if you are using bread with sugar on top--like the Red, White, and Blue loaf I used--make sure the sugar side isn't against the pan; the sugar will burn. I had to trim a few bits off, but thankfully it didn't do too much damage. Also, in this case, I don't think I really needed to do this step; I think the fresh bread would have worked fine.) Toss with the melted butter and set aside.
Meanwhile, in a medium-sized bowl, combine the eggs, milks, sugar, and vanilla until well-mixed.
Pour mixture atop the bread cubes. Gently press them into the liquid and allow to sit for 5-10 minutes, to absorb the goodness. (This is a good time to clean up a bit.)
Pour the bread mixture into a buttered oven-proof dish (I used a 2.5qt square). Bake at 350 degrees for 45 minutes, or until the center springs back when you press on it.
Serve warm. Store extra in refrigerator.
Makes 6-8 servings.
Blueberry Sauce
1/2 cup water
1/2 cup sugar
2 tbsp corn starch
1/8 tsp (a "pinch") salt
2 cups blueberries
1 tbsp lemon juice
1 tsp lemon zest
Combine water, sugar, salt, and starch in a small saucepan. Heat on medium heat, stirring frequently until liquid boils and thickens. (It happens sort of suddenly and you'll notice little gelatinous strings appear. Then it becomes even more jellified--that's when it's ready.) At this point, add the blueberries and stir, bringing to a boil. Simmer for about 5 minutes. (The blueberries will break down a little and make the sauce, but some will remain whole.) Stir in the lemon juice and zest, then remove from heat. Let sauce cool slightly before using.
Spoon sauce over bread pudding.
Sauce can be served warm or cold, and is a great topping for ice cream or waffles, too! (Store extra in the refrigerator.)
Makes about 2 cups.
Fresh Whipped Cream
1 pint heavy whipping cream (keep in coldest part of fridge until ready to use--the colder the better!)
1 tbsp sugar
1 tsp vanilla
In a deep glass or metal bowl (preferably one that's been in the freezer for 15 minutes, though I skipped that step), use a hand mixer (or a stand mixer) to beat the whipping cream until thick. While you can, of course, whisk by hand, I wouldn't recommend it unless you've got incredible stamina and strong arms! (As you beat it, the cream will bubble up a lot and you'll wonder when it will come together. Around that time, you'll notice it thickening. It takes a couple of minutes, so hang in there.)
Once it is thick, add the sugar and vanilla and continue to beat for a bit longer, until cream forms stiff peaks.
Don't over beat, or it'll separate.
Serve chilled. Store in the coldest part of fridge.
___________
I wish you success with this recipe. It's great for dessert, but could also make a decadent breakfast.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
A Must-Have Condiment Staple for Your Pantry
I am just here making a little sammy for a late dinner (since I had a late lunch, too). And as I was whipping up my new go-to spread to add to my tuna salad, I felt compelled to share this tip for everyone else's enjoyment. It's a condiment that many people probably do not have in their stock, but which all persons would do well to add because it's versatile and oh-so-delicious. Here it is:
Whole Grain Mustard.
If you're like me, you probably already have an assortment of mustards: yellow, brown, Dijon. But this one is different. It has (due to the whole grains) a little pop-burst to it, and even a slightly sweetish flavor, and tastes rich.
Go buy it now--it's right there next to all the other mustards in the supermarket. Really. I'll wait....
Ok, so now that you have it, let me reiterate how yum it is.
I started buying whole grain mustard a few years ago because I found a recipe for a fancy pork loin meal on Food Network's website. It was an Ina Garten (aka Barefoot Contessa) recipe. She uses whole grain mustard often in her cooking, so I have her to thank for introducing me to it.
The pork was delightful and my husband and I received rave reviews on the meal.
More recently, I was looking for a good potato salad recipe. Again, Ina delivered. Again, it called for whole grain mustard. I got rave reviews on the potato salad too--everyone asked for the recipe. I'm telling you--it's the mustard that makes it good.
A few days post-potato salad, Brian and I were watching Chopped. He felt inspired to come up with a "weird" recipe for us to enjoy, so he told me his plan. (It wasn't too wild and wacky, but was basically a tuna salad lettuce wrap melt.) I was game to try it. I only made one suggestion to him: since there happened to be some of the potato salad "dressing" left over, I suggested he use it instead of the plain mayo to make the tuna. He did. Those lettuce wraps were amazing! It was that dressing.
I tried it on egg salad, too--also a success.
So here's the recipe I use (which is slightly modified from Ina's) which you, too, can enjoy with egg salad, tuna salad, potato salad, or, as I also used it, as a spread on a grilled chicken sandwich with lettuce and tomato. All, I promise, were delish and it's due to the whole grain mustard.
(For a little over a cup yield of the spread)
1 cup mayo
2 tbsp whole grain mustard
2 tbsp Dijon mustard
3-4 tbsp fresh dill weed, minced
pepper to taste
(I would suggest NOT adding salt--I've found the mixture quite salty enough without adding it in there)
Stir and enjoy!
I hope you take the time to try this lesser-used mustard. I think you'll be glad you did.
Whole Grain Mustard.
If you're like me, you probably already have an assortment of mustards: yellow, brown, Dijon. But this one is different. It has (due to the whole grains) a little pop-burst to it, and even a slightly sweetish flavor, and tastes rich.
Go buy it now--it's right there next to all the other mustards in the supermarket. Really. I'll wait....
Ok, so now that you have it, let me reiterate how yum it is.
I started buying whole grain mustard a few years ago because I found a recipe for a fancy pork loin meal on Food Network's website. It was an Ina Garten (aka Barefoot Contessa) recipe. She uses whole grain mustard often in her cooking, so I have her to thank for introducing me to it.
The pork was delightful and my husband and I received rave reviews on the meal.
More recently, I was looking for a good potato salad recipe. Again, Ina delivered. Again, it called for whole grain mustard. I got rave reviews on the potato salad too--everyone asked for the recipe. I'm telling you--it's the mustard that makes it good.
A few days post-potato salad, Brian and I were watching Chopped. He felt inspired to come up with a "weird" recipe for us to enjoy, so he told me his plan. (It wasn't too wild and wacky, but was basically a tuna salad lettuce wrap melt.) I was game to try it. I only made one suggestion to him: since there happened to be some of the potato salad "dressing" left over, I suggested he use it instead of the plain mayo to make the tuna. He did. Those lettuce wraps were amazing! It was that dressing.
I tried it on egg salad, too--also a success.
So here's the recipe I use (which is slightly modified from Ina's) which you, too, can enjoy with egg salad, tuna salad, potato salad, or, as I also used it, as a spread on a grilled chicken sandwich with lettuce and tomato. All, I promise, were delish and it's due to the whole grain mustard.
(For a little over a cup yield of the spread)
1 cup mayo
2 tbsp whole grain mustard
2 tbsp Dijon mustard
3-4 tbsp fresh dill weed, minced
pepper to taste
(I would suggest NOT adding salt--I've found the mixture quite salty enough without adding it in there)
Stir and enjoy!
I hope you take the time to try this lesser-used mustard. I think you'll be glad you did.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
The Best $10,000 I Ever Spent
Back in 1999, I made a decision that would forever change my life (for the good, I think): I chose to attend the beautifully picturesque Rosemont College as an undergraduate.
At the time, Rosemont was a women's college, which wasn't at all something I'd been looking for when I was college-searching, but which actually ended up being one of the greatest parts of being there. (As a sad aside, Rosemont has recently gone co-ed which, while I'm sure a lucky break for the boys, is quite a shame to its own heritage. I guess Rosemont did what she needed to do to stay afloat--after all, single-sex colleges tend to have stigmas attached to them and aren't a big draw to today's college-bound students--but the move felt a bit like a sell-out to me, and I haven't yet quite forgiven her for it.) There was always a sense of family there, and, because it was a small school, there was also the sense that each individual was valued for herself and her own contributions. The professors, especially those in the English department (since, as an English Literature major, I spent the most time with them), were exceptional. I received a top-notch education and left much brighter than when I entered.
When I left in 2003, not only did I take a degree with me, but I also took relationships with some of the finest women (and one man--my husband!) I've ever had the pleasure of knowing.
I worked very hard in high school, such that I had earned almost a full academic scholarship to Rosemont, which I supplemented with the various grants I'd won from outside organizations like the Rotary, Soroptimist International, and Sam Walton (Wal-mart); the money I earned for having been a papergirl for the Intelligencer for 3 years; and a Stafford loan. In all, I ended up amassing only about $6,000 in college education debt. However, my loans equalled about $16,000 because I lived on campus for 1.5 years and the rest of my debt was a result of room and board. (Isn't that madness?!)
Had I not lived on campus, though, I wouldn't have been able to experience some of the things or cultivate the wonderful friendships I did. Nor would I have qualified for the work-study program, which placed me as a student worker in the Department of Public Safety where I met Brian, who I married in 2004. (We started as friends, and didn't even start dating until my senior year, long after we'd both stopped working there.) Thus, I often joke that my husband and friends cost me $10,000. But it was definitely money well spent.
While my college girlfriends are a varied bunch, each lady is smart, sassy, and successful. Among my own core group (made up of myself, Erin, Ellen, Kate, Kelly, Laura, Lisa, and Theresa--and 3 others who live farther away: Jamie, Nicole, and Nicole), we have 4 ladies in education--2 high school teachers, a guidance counselor, and a world-traveling teacher of English, 3 lawyers, 2 doctors, an HR manager, a lobbyist, and a partridge in a pear tree. Not a bad showing!
Since graduating, we've celebrated 7 marriages, 4 births (and another on the way), and most recently, an outbreak of 30th birthdays!
Though we don't all get together very often (usually, the crowd is smaller), most of us regularly communicate on facebook or by phone. And, 2 to 3 times a year since 2004, we try to assemble for a meeting of the Rosemont College Wine Club. (In vino veritas!)
One of us will host, and thus sends out the invitations, setting the date and wine type. On the designated day, each lady comes bearing a bottle of wine, and an appetite for catching up. We actually DO conduct a thorough wine tasting in and among our chatter: we discuss the color, smell, and flavor of each wine (we used to try to discuss the "legs", too, but admitted at our most recent meeting last month that we clearly have no idea what we're doing on that front, so we've abandoned it for now.) I keep a log of our comments for each bottle we try. At the end of the tasting, I read back our (often hysterical) comments, we vote on which wine was the best overall, a little prize is awarded to the lady who brought the winning bottle, and we set about finishing off as much of the wine as is left. It's really quite a delight. Not the wine so much (though wine is, let's face it, certainly also great), but the friendship.
I can't elaborate further because we agreed long ago that the first rule of Wine Club is that you don't talk about Wine Club, a.k.a "what happens at Wine Club stays at Wine Club." (It's similar to Fight Club that way, I guess. And Vegas. The rule is probably our only thing in common with either, though.) In any event, frankly, I've probably already said too much!
I cherish these get-togethers, though, because they remind me of what friendship means, and the important role it plays in our lives. I love that we are each very different women, each with our own distinct personality and path, but that we also share common memories from a happy time when we blossomed as women at Rosemont, and can continue to grow together as we blossom as women of the world. We celebrate each other's successes, mourn each other's losses, cheer each other on, build each other up, and drink wine. What could be better?
So raise a glass to friendship--how sweet it is. (It may have "cost" me 10 grand, but it was worth every penny!) Cheers!
At the time, Rosemont was a women's college, which wasn't at all something I'd been looking for when I was college-searching, but which actually ended up being one of the greatest parts of being there. (As a sad aside, Rosemont has recently gone co-ed which, while I'm sure a lucky break for the boys, is quite a shame to its own heritage. I guess Rosemont did what she needed to do to stay afloat--after all, single-sex colleges tend to have stigmas attached to them and aren't a big draw to today's college-bound students--but the move felt a bit like a sell-out to me, and I haven't yet quite forgiven her for it.) There was always a sense of family there, and, because it was a small school, there was also the sense that each individual was valued for herself and her own contributions. The professors, especially those in the English department (since, as an English Literature major, I spent the most time with them), were exceptional. I received a top-notch education and left much brighter than when I entered.
When I left in 2003, not only did I take a degree with me, but I also took relationships with some of the finest women (and one man--my husband!) I've ever had the pleasure of knowing.
I worked very hard in high school, such that I had earned almost a full academic scholarship to Rosemont, which I supplemented with the various grants I'd won from outside organizations like the Rotary, Soroptimist International, and Sam Walton (Wal-mart); the money I earned for having been a papergirl for the Intelligencer for 3 years; and a Stafford loan. In all, I ended up amassing only about $6,000 in college education debt. However, my loans equalled about $16,000 because I lived on campus for 1.5 years and the rest of my debt was a result of room and board. (Isn't that madness?!)
Had I not lived on campus, though, I wouldn't have been able to experience some of the things or cultivate the wonderful friendships I did. Nor would I have qualified for the work-study program, which placed me as a student worker in the Department of Public Safety where I met Brian, who I married in 2004. (We started as friends, and didn't even start dating until my senior year, long after we'd both stopped working there.) Thus, I often joke that my husband and friends cost me $10,000. But it was definitely money well spent.
While my college girlfriends are a varied bunch, each lady is smart, sassy, and successful. Among my own core group (made up of myself, Erin, Ellen, Kate, Kelly, Laura, Lisa, and Theresa--and 3 others who live farther away: Jamie, Nicole, and Nicole), we have 4 ladies in education--2 high school teachers, a guidance counselor, and a world-traveling teacher of English, 3 lawyers, 2 doctors, an HR manager, a lobbyist, and a partridge in a pear tree. Not a bad showing!
Since graduating, we've celebrated 7 marriages, 4 births (and another on the way), and most recently, an outbreak of 30th birthdays!
Though we don't all get together very often (usually, the crowd is smaller), most of us regularly communicate on facebook or by phone. And, 2 to 3 times a year since 2004, we try to assemble for a meeting of the Rosemont College Wine Club. (In vino veritas!)
One of us will host, and thus sends out the invitations, setting the date and wine type. On the designated day, each lady comes bearing a bottle of wine, and an appetite for catching up. We actually DO conduct a thorough wine tasting in and among our chatter: we discuss the color, smell, and flavor of each wine (we used to try to discuss the "legs", too, but admitted at our most recent meeting last month that we clearly have no idea what we're doing on that front, so we've abandoned it for now.) I keep a log of our comments for each bottle we try. At the end of the tasting, I read back our (often hysterical) comments, we vote on which wine was the best overall, a little prize is awarded to the lady who brought the winning bottle, and we set about finishing off as much of the wine as is left. It's really quite a delight. Not the wine so much (though wine is, let's face it, certainly also great), but the friendship.
I can't elaborate further because we agreed long ago that the first rule of Wine Club is that you don't talk about Wine Club, a.k.a "what happens at Wine Club stays at Wine Club." (It's similar to Fight Club that way, I guess. And Vegas. The rule is probably our only thing in common with either, though.) In any event, frankly, I've probably already said too much!
I cherish these get-togethers, though, because they remind me of what friendship means, and the important role it plays in our lives. I love that we are each very different women, each with our own distinct personality and path, but that we also share common memories from a happy time when we blossomed as women at Rosemont, and can continue to grow together as we blossom as women of the world. We celebrate each other's successes, mourn each other's losses, cheer each other on, build each other up, and drink wine. What could be better?
So raise a glass to friendship--how sweet it is. (It may have "cost" me 10 grand, but it was worth every penny!) Cheers!
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
June Reflection: My Favorite Teaching Memory
It's June.
If I were at work (which I'm not currently for 2 reasons: A. I'm on maternity leave, and B. I've been suspended and continue to await a decision by the district as to whether I'll return next year), I would be excitedly--and frantically--bringing the semester to a close. Papers and final projects would be done (or nearly done). I'd be directing my students to check the online system for final exam preparation materials. Administration would be pressuring teachers to pass their borderline students, while students who had slacked all semester would be approaching me at the 11th hour trying to seek out non-existent extra-credit assignments. You know, standard June behavior.
Next week would be finals. Next Friday, graduation.
But I'm not there to deal with that stuff right now. I'm home with my family.
But June is June. To me, it's the 'end of the year.' And time for reflection.
This year, I have more to reflect upon than normal.
In an obvious sense, I can reflect upon the fact that I started this year super excited and happy and flexible and hopeful. Then I got a particularly malicious group of students (again, no, not ALL of them, but evidently enough to strip the lustre from the positive feelings above) who decided to make it their business to try to ruin me. But that's not what I feel like reflecting on right now. (Some people have charged me with being too negative, but they are wrong.)
Instead, I'd like to reflect on my absolute favorite teaching memory. Why is it in my head now, you ask? Because the student involved is graduating next Friday and will be heading to his first choice college in the fall (for which I wrote him a stellar recommendation letter sharing this very memory!)
In order to appreciate this story, though, it's important to have a little context, so I'm going to provide it first.
Paper-writing time is always one of the worst parts of teaching (and taking) English class. In a general sense, students don't like to write--especially on academic subjects--and feel overwhelmed by the process even before it begins. They sort of psych themselves out right up front, which is a shame. I'd attempted to make the process as painless as possible by pairing the paper with the short story unit (which students tend to enjoy more than other units, probably because the stories are more modern), and by making the essay prompts directly follow the topics we'd specifically discussed in class. Further, I had broken down the essay into several parts (after painstakingly reviewing all of the writing process and a sample essay with them): thesis statements, outlines, quote selection, rough draft, final copy. I offered conferences for their thesis statements, their outlines, and their quote selection.
How this typically ended up playing out, then, was that students would sit down with me for their thesis conference and would have something vague ready to go, and would expect me to fill in the blanks for them. I'd turn this tactic around and ask them leading questions to get to the basis of what they wanted to express, and then they would, in fact, end up writing their own statements. Sometimes they resented this, but a lot of times it worked well. The outlines and quote checks were a little more sketchy. Some students did exactly what they should've done, and had questions ready for me when we conferenced (which is the idea of the conference), and things went well. But more often, there would be parts that were good and parts that were off base, or parts that were not even completed because they'd saved the task for the last minute and run out of time. I'd point out the issues that needed work, and would offer suggestions or ask questions of them so they could realize how they could fix the problems, but, more often than not, between the early drafting process and the final copy, the papers didn't undergo much change. It was so frustrating because it seemed an issue of laziness much more than inability, especially as the review time was there.
Now, with this particular favorite memory, the paper process was, in large part, progressing in a similar fashion as I've just described. We were in the outline stage. The way I had them outline, though, was in complete sentences AND with textual evidence, so, in large part, they would sort of already have their paper written if they completed this stage correctly. If completed properly, they would have put a good deal of time into their outlines.
One of my male honors students came up in turn for his conference. He was a relatively quiet but creative kid, and one who would only participate sporadically in class discussions. He had his entire outline completed as assigned, and it was substantial. He said something like, "I've been working on this and it's pretty decent, I think, but you mentioned something in class recently about the potential supernatural element in the story. I've been thinking about it -- can you tell me a little more about that?"
I was shocked. In a good way. I was so excited. Someone was listening! Someone was interested in something I'd said! Yahoo!!! So I happily explained the supernatural element as he'd requested, and he excitedly interjected a few things as they were occurring to him as I talked.
Then he said, "Wow. This is cool. Would it be ok if I changed the direction of my paper to this, and went home tonight and made a new outline to show you tomorrow?"
Would it be ok for a student to willingly scrap his entire 1st effort in favor of one that he was interested and excited enough to want to explore instead???!!! Hells yeah! I was blown away.
And what's more, he DID it. He went home that night, reworked an entirely new outline with textual evidence, and brought it to me the next day for review. We conferenced again, and he turned the outline into a fully-realized paper for the final deadline. Was his paper the best I'd ever read? No. But it was good. And it was the result of genuine interest and effort, and one of the truest displays of learning and enthusiasm I'd ever seen to that point, and since then, in fact. It was an absolute treat to read.
It was a breath of fresh air. It was so delightful to me as an instructor to be able to have shared an idea that sparked a student's interest and made him want to think about it some more. It was an example of why so many teachers do what they do each day. It was what school is supposed to be about. It was magnificent.
While I wish that these moments were far less rare, I'm still thrilled and touched to have been part of that incident, and will be forever grateful to that particular creative, funny, and enthusiastic young man for showing passion about ideas.
After this incident, he seemed a bit more outgoing in class, and would sometimes stay after for a moment to chat about something I'd said that day. He continued to stop by my room to chat the rest of last year, as well as this year before I left. Like I said, I even wrote him a letter of recommendation and shared his happiness at getting admitted to his first-choice college.
I wish there were more students like him, and I wish this memory wasn't as exceptional as it is. Regardless, though, I hold it close to my heart and, this June, I wish him and the other students who were kind and who tried and who were willing to work, all the best in the future. Congrats to the grads!
If I were at work (which I'm not currently for 2 reasons: A. I'm on maternity leave, and B. I've been suspended and continue to await a decision by the district as to whether I'll return next year), I would be excitedly--and frantically--bringing the semester to a close. Papers and final projects would be done (or nearly done). I'd be directing my students to check the online system for final exam preparation materials. Administration would be pressuring teachers to pass their borderline students, while students who had slacked all semester would be approaching me at the 11th hour trying to seek out non-existent extra-credit assignments. You know, standard June behavior.
Next week would be finals. Next Friday, graduation.
But I'm not there to deal with that stuff right now. I'm home with my family.
But June is June. To me, it's the 'end of the year.' And time for reflection.
This year, I have more to reflect upon than normal.
In an obvious sense, I can reflect upon the fact that I started this year super excited and happy and flexible and hopeful. Then I got a particularly malicious group of students (again, no, not ALL of them, but evidently enough to strip the lustre from the positive feelings above) who decided to make it their business to try to ruin me. But that's not what I feel like reflecting on right now. (Some people have charged me with being too negative, but they are wrong.)
Instead, I'd like to reflect on my absolute favorite teaching memory. Why is it in my head now, you ask? Because the student involved is graduating next Friday and will be heading to his first choice college in the fall (for which I wrote him a stellar recommendation letter sharing this very memory!)
In order to appreciate this story, though, it's important to have a little context, so I'm going to provide it first.
Paper-writing time is always one of the worst parts of teaching (and taking) English class. In a general sense, students don't like to write--especially on academic subjects--and feel overwhelmed by the process even before it begins. They sort of psych themselves out right up front, which is a shame. I'd attempted to make the process as painless as possible by pairing the paper with the short story unit (which students tend to enjoy more than other units, probably because the stories are more modern), and by making the essay prompts directly follow the topics we'd specifically discussed in class. Further, I had broken down the essay into several parts (after painstakingly reviewing all of the writing process and a sample essay with them): thesis statements, outlines, quote selection, rough draft, final copy. I offered conferences for their thesis statements, their outlines, and their quote selection.
How this typically ended up playing out, then, was that students would sit down with me for their thesis conference and would have something vague ready to go, and would expect me to fill in the blanks for them. I'd turn this tactic around and ask them leading questions to get to the basis of what they wanted to express, and then they would, in fact, end up writing their own statements. Sometimes they resented this, but a lot of times it worked well. The outlines and quote checks were a little more sketchy. Some students did exactly what they should've done, and had questions ready for me when we conferenced (which is the idea of the conference), and things went well. But more often, there would be parts that were good and parts that were off base, or parts that were not even completed because they'd saved the task for the last minute and run out of time. I'd point out the issues that needed work, and would offer suggestions or ask questions of them so they could realize how they could fix the problems, but, more often than not, between the early drafting process and the final copy, the papers didn't undergo much change. It was so frustrating because it seemed an issue of laziness much more than inability, especially as the review time was there.
Now, with this particular favorite memory, the paper process was, in large part, progressing in a similar fashion as I've just described. We were in the outline stage. The way I had them outline, though, was in complete sentences AND with textual evidence, so, in large part, they would sort of already have their paper written if they completed this stage correctly. If completed properly, they would have put a good deal of time into their outlines.
One of my male honors students came up in turn for his conference. He was a relatively quiet but creative kid, and one who would only participate sporadically in class discussions. He had his entire outline completed as assigned, and it was substantial. He said something like, "I've been working on this and it's pretty decent, I think, but you mentioned something in class recently about the potential supernatural element in the story. I've been thinking about it -- can you tell me a little more about that?"
I was shocked. In a good way. I was so excited. Someone was listening! Someone was interested in something I'd said! Yahoo!!! So I happily explained the supernatural element as he'd requested, and he excitedly interjected a few things as they were occurring to him as I talked.
Then he said, "Wow. This is cool. Would it be ok if I changed the direction of my paper to this, and went home tonight and made a new outline to show you tomorrow?"
Would it be ok for a student to willingly scrap his entire 1st effort in favor of one that he was interested and excited enough to want to explore instead???!!! Hells yeah! I was blown away.
And what's more, he DID it. He went home that night, reworked an entirely new outline with textual evidence, and brought it to me the next day for review. We conferenced again, and he turned the outline into a fully-realized paper for the final deadline. Was his paper the best I'd ever read? No. But it was good. And it was the result of genuine interest and effort, and one of the truest displays of learning and enthusiasm I'd ever seen to that point, and since then, in fact. It was an absolute treat to read.
It was a breath of fresh air. It was so delightful to me as an instructor to be able to have shared an idea that sparked a student's interest and made him want to think about it some more. It was an example of why so many teachers do what they do each day. It was what school is supposed to be about. It was magnificent.
While I wish that these moments were far less rare, I'm still thrilled and touched to have been part of that incident, and will be forever grateful to that particular creative, funny, and enthusiastic young man for showing passion about ideas.
After this incident, he seemed a bit more outgoing in class, and would sometimes stay after for a moment to chat about something I'd said that day. He continued to stop by my room to chat the rest of last year, as well as this year before I left. Like I said, I even wrote him a letter of recommendation and shared his happiness at getting admitted to his first-choice college.
I wish there were more students like him, and I wish this memory wasn't as exceptional as it is. Regardless, though, I hold it close to my heart and, this June, I wish him and the other students who were kind and who tried and who were willing to work, all the best in the future. Congrats to the grads!
Monday, June 6, 2011
New Flavor for Food Network Star Season 7?
Last night was the much-anticipated season premier of The Next Food-Network Star. (What? I was much-anticipating it!)
I've been a fan since the show's inception. However, it seems like Food Network might be trying to tweak its usual recipe for the 7th season, and I'm not sure I'm a fan of the new flavor.
Star is pretty standard fare for reality tv talent search: in their case, they're looking for a person who has cooking chops, is likeable, and marketable from a brand perspective. They also want someone who brings something different to their tv lineup table. (If you'll excuse all of the cooking puns.)
As the seasons have progressed, there have been--as with any talent search--some successes and some fizzles. Amy Finley of season 3, for instance, never reached star potential on Food Network. (Interesting fact for you non-Star watchers: Finley was actually NOT the chosen winner. The original winner was some ex-Marine guy who ended up having some disqualifying characteristic which the show evidently didn't know about until after naming him the winner. Thus, Finley was given the top spot in the manner of Miss America's first runner up, what with Mr. Star being unable to fulfill his duties and all... I'd been a fan of Finley's for most of the season and was happy to see her end up with the win. However, when I saw her show air, it was really quite bad. She didn't have the star-power needed to hold viewer attention; her show was actually boring to watch. Which is probably part of the reason you no longer find her on the Food Network.) Then there's the biggest former Star: Guy Fieri of season 2. You'd know if you read my old blog (before I took it down at the height of Bloggate 2011) that I feel that Guy is over-exposed. He may be a good cook and a fun dude, but he is involved with waaaaaay too many things: TGIFriday's stuff, several shows on Food Network, host of "Minute to Win It." It's just too much for me. I say, sometimes less is more.
There has also been the emergence of the cooking show contestant archetypes: stay-at-home mom who has to prove herself among the "classically trained" cooks, gourmet chef showing his mad cooking skills, foodie-turned-cook, food blogger, ethnic cook, health-nut, former overweight cook who discovered food can be healthy and wants to share, good cook who sucks on camera, bad cook who's good on camera, obnoxious guy, pretty gal... you know what I mean. Everyone is filling a role, beyond just filling their rolls. (Couldn't resist that one!)
Over the years, the challenges have gotten tougher, and the parade of the biggest names on Food Network has gotten more regular, like Bobby Flay as host, and Alton Brown as guest director there to be borderline rude to the contestants. (Seriously, Alton, you could tone it down just a smidge; they aren't professional tv stars yet!) But one thing has remained pretty much the same: most of the contestants have been likeable in some way. Even the obnoxious or weird ones (think Adam Gertler or Tom Pizzica, neither of whom won the show but both of whom now have shows on Food Network) had us rooting them on because they were goofy and fun-loving. Oh sure, there were the occasional double-crosses and lies and slimy behavior situations--some incidents with Debbie Lee of season 5 and Paul Young of season 6 come to mind-- and the occasional 'tude--like from Brianna Jenkins of season 6--but, again, most of the contestants seemed like nice enough people. I've always assumed that this was purposeful on the part of Food Network because, after all, how are you going to successfully market someone who all of your viewers know is a jerk? It would probably be difficult.
But, it seems, something is shifting now.
Maybe it's because reality tv dominates the airwaves now, and the competition is more fierce, and people are tuning in to such trash as the Real Housewives or MTV's Real World (which has grown more and more disgusting as the years progress, though I haven't watched it in years and am basing my contention on clips I see on The Soup), and Food Network is just trying to keep up with the times. But of this season's hopefuls, I found myself thinking last night, there were several personalities who seemed out of place with the normal crew. There were archetypes missing from the contenders (the stay-at-home mom, for instance, though perhaps they don't need her anymore since she won 2 seasons ago...). There were, quite regrettably, new ones that really have no place on this show, and I think it's to the detriment of both the program and the network as a whole that they were even there.
Take, for instance, the 1st casualty of the season: Howie. He is a radio personality who was trying to break into tv. He is not a cook. He said as much himself, and then proved it over and over again in the challenges. He even said to the judges that he was a novice. Um, I'm sorry, but who wants to watch a cooking show hosted by someone who, it's very possible, knows even less than they do about cooking? Not I! He clearly had no clue what he was doing, and was a drain on his team (at least, that's how the show's editing made it seem.) In the team challenge, his teammate Jyll had to find him bowls, ice, utensils; had to help him heat oil; had to instruct him on, it seemed, all counts. But when it came time for judging and his teammates didn't have anything to show for themselves since they'd been busy helping him, he said nothing. Before the elimination, when Jyll approached him about how much she'd helped him, he didn't thank her or apologize--he tried pointing out the things he felt he had done and made it seem like she'd done little for him. At elimination, he tried the same tactic. Thankfully, the selection committee saw that he didn't have the cooking chops and cut him, but I couldn't help wondering how he could have even made it to the taping round. Had there not been any better contenders among the audition video entries than him?
Next, there was the obnoxious dude (who is doing double-duty this season as the gourmet chef who thinks he's a food god), Chris, who tried to buy a 6-pack of beer on his team's trip to the market to get their supplies for the challenge. Did I mention that he was planning to use part of the team's food budget for this purchase? And was trying to pressure one of the teammates into not buying a more expensive chocolate for her dessert so that he could get the beer? Well, he was. One of the contestants remarked early on that Chris seemed like a frat boy. That was an accurate description of him. He also tried to start crap with one of his teammates (the ethnic cooker, if you were wondering) about her spicy sauce. He tried pulling rank and saying he wouldn't serve something that would burn the judges' mouths. She had to argue in favor of the bold flavor as it was her cooking type and her contribution. (It was served; the judges enjoyed it.) His brand of obnoxious and his argumentative nature do not seem like they'll become endearing as time goes on. They will merely become more annoying.
Most notably, however, in unlikeable characters, was a woman who, I think, must have gotten lost on her way over to the Mob Wives taping. A short, dark-haired middle aged woman, Penny showed up in a garish, fuzzy vest-like abomination and animal-print stilettos. Then she took an immediate, catty, and unbecoming dislike to the younger, tall, blond, former-model Alicia. She even remarked that Alicia was tall and blond and her opposite. It seemed quite obvious that she hated Alicia on sight simply because of her appearance, as though jealous of her. Then, in and among her time trying to over-sell her "sexy" food concept (which, also, really doesn't have a place on Food Network), she proceeded to be, well, a real bitch to and about Alicia for the rest of the episode. Penny made snarky comments about Alicia's cooking abilities, was argumentative at the market because Alicia needed "too many" ingredients for her meal (which the judges loved, by the way), was mean about the dessert concept Alicia had come up with for their team, and even appeared to try to sabotage it by letting it boil after being asked to make sure that it didn't. From the look of the previews, it seems like this won't be the last of the cattiness from this chick. I'm not saying I'm Alicia's #1 fan --though, really, she seemed quite harmless and, so far, likeable enough--the animosity coming from Penny was uncalled for, and made her seem like a villain.
As I said before, I don't know exactly why Food Network has decided to go this way in their casting for season 7--perhaps they're trying to stay up with the trends--but I really wish they wouldn't. I was further distressed by their preview montage which advertised more clashing behaviors and incidents coming up this season. Why this new approach? They should really leave the spice and intrigue and trash to the other shows and just concentrate on what has made them successful in the past.
The thought that this shift might be the new norm for this show leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I've been a fan since the show's inception. However, it seems like Food Network might be trying to tweak its usual recipe for the 7th season, and I'm not sure I'm a fan of the new flavor.
Star is pretty standard fare for reality tv talent search: in their case, they're looking for a person who has cooking chops, is likeable, and marketable from a brand perspective. They also want someone who brings something different to their tv lineup table. (If you'll excuse all of the cooking puns.)
As the seasons have progressed, there have been--as with any talent search--some successes and some fizzles. Amy Finley of season 3, for instance, never reached star potential on Food Network. (Interesting fact for you non-Star watchers: Finley was actually NOT the chosen winner. The original winner was some ex-Marine guy who ended up having some disqualifying characteristic which the show evidently didn't know about until after naming him the winner. Thus, Finley was given the top spot in the manner of Miss America's first runner up, what with Mr. Star being unable to fulfill his duties and all... I'd been a fan of Finley's for most of the season and was happy to see her end up with the win. However, when I saw her show air, it was really quite bad. She didn't have the star-power needed to hold viewer attention; her show was actually boring to watch. Which is probably part of the reason you no longer find her on the Food Network.) Then there's the biggest former Star: Guy Fieri of season 2. You'd know if you read my old blog (before I took it down at the height of Bloggate 2011) that I feel that Guy is over-exposed. He may be a good cook and a fun dude, but he is involved with waaaaaay too many things: TGIFriday's stuff, several shows on Food Network, host of "Minute to Win It." It's just too much for me. I say, sometimes less is more.
There has also been the emergence of the cooking show contestant archetypes: stay-at-home mom who has to prove herself among the "classically trained" cooks, gourmet chef showing his mad cooking skills, foodie-turned-cook, food blogger, ethnic cook, health-nut, former overweight cook who discovered food can be healthy and wants to share, good cook who sucks on camera, bad cook who's good on camera, obnoxious guy, pretty gal... you know what I mean. Everyone is filling a role, beyond just filling their rolls. (Couldn't resist that one!)
Over the years, the challenges have gotten tougher, and the parade of the biggest names on Food Network has gotten more regular, like Bobby Flay as host, and Alton Brown as guest director there to be borderline rude to the contestants. (Seriously, Alton, you could tone it down just a smidge; they aren't professional tv stars yet!) But one thing has remained pretty much the same: most of the contestants have been likeable in some way. Even the obnoxious or weird ones (think Adam Gertler or Tom Pizzica, neither of whom won the show but both of whom now have shows on Food Network) had us rooting them on because they were goofy and fun-loving. Oh sure, there were the occasional double-crosses and lies and slimy behavior situations--some incidents with Debbie Lee of season 5 and Paul Young of season 6 come to mind-- and the occasional 'tude--like from Brianna Jenkins of season 6--but, again, most of the contestants seemed like nice enough people. I've always assumed that this was purposeful on the part of Food Network because, after all, how are you going to successfully market someone who all of your viewers know is a jerk? It would probably be difficult.
But, it seems, something is shifting now.
Maybe it's because reality tv dominates the airwaves now, and the competition is more fierce, and people are tuning in to such trash as the Real Housewives or MTV's Real World (which has grown more and more disgusting as the years progress, though I haven't watched it in years and am basing my contention on clips I see on The Soup), and Food Network is just trying to keep up with the times. But of this season's hopefuls, I found myself thinking last night, there were several personalities who seemed out of place with the normal crew. There were archetypes missing from the contenders (the stay-at-home mom, for instance, though perhaps they don't need her anymore since she won 2 seasons ago...). There were, quite regrettably, new ones that really have no place on this show, and I think it's to the detriment of both the program and the network as a whole that they were even there.
Take, for instance, the 1st casualty of the season: Howie. He is a radio personality who was trying to break into tv. He is not a cook. He said as much himself, and then proved it over and over again in the challenges. He even said to the judges that he was a novice. Um, I'm sorry, but who wants to watch a cooking show hosted by someone who, it's very possible, knows even less than they do about cooking? Not I! He clearly had no clue what he was doing, and was a drain on his team (at least, that's how the show's editing made it seem.) In the team challenge, his teammate Jyll had to find him bowls, ice, utensils; had to help him heat oil; had to instruct him on, it seemed, all counts. But when it came time for judging and his teammates didn't have anything to show for themselves since they'd been busy helping him, he said nothing. Before the elimination, when Jyll approached him about how much she'd helped him, he didn't thank her or apologize--he tried pointing out the things he felt he had done and made it seem like she'd done little for him. At elimination, he tried the same tactic. Thankfully, the selection committee saw that he didn't have the cooking chops and cut him, but I couldn't help wondering how he could have even made it to the taping round. Had there not been any better contenders among the audition video entries than him?
Next, there was the obnoxious dude (who is doing double-duty this season as the gourmet chef who thinks he's a food god), Chris, who tried to buy a 6-pack of beer on his team's trip to the market to get their supplies for the challenge. Did I mention that he was planning to use part of the team's food budget for this purchase? And was trying to pressure one of the teammates into not buying a more expensive chocolate for her dessert so that he could get the beer? Well, he was. One of the contestants remarked early on that Chris seemed like a frat boy. That was an accurate description of him. He also tried to start crap with one of his teammates (the ethnic cooker, if you were wondering) about her spicy sauce. He tried pulling rank and saying he wouldn't serve something that would burn the judges' mouths. She had to argue in favor of the bold flavor as it was her cooking type and her contribution. (It was served; the judges enjoyed it.) His brand of obnoxious and his argumentative nature do not seem like they'll become endearing as time goes on. They will merely become more annoying.
Most notably, however, in unlikeable characters, was a woman who, I think, must have gotten lost on her way over to the Mob Wives taping. A short, dark-haired middle aged woman, Penny showed up in a garish, fuzzy vest-like abomination and animal-print stilettos. Then she took an immediate, catty, and unbecoming dislike to the younger, tall, blond, former-model Alicia. She even remarked that Alicia was tall and blond and her opposite. It seemed quite obvious that she hated Alicia on sight simply because of her appearance, as though jealous of her. Then, in and among her time trying to over-sell her "sexy" food concept (which, also, really doesn't have a place on Food Network), she proceeded to be, well, a real bitch to and about Alicia for the rest of the episode. Penny made snarky comments about Alicia's cooking abilities, was argumentative at the market because Alicia needed "too many" ingredients for her meal (which the judges loved, by the way), was mean about the dessert concept Alicia had come up with for their team, and even appeared to try to sabotage it by letting it boil after being asked to make sure that it didn't. From the look of the previews, it seems like this won't be the last of the cattiness from this chick. I'm not saying I'm Alicia's #1 fan --though, really, she seemed quite harmless and, so far, likeable enough--the animosity coming from Penny was uncalled for, and made her seem like a villain.
As I said before, I don't know exactly why Food Network has decided to go this way in their casting for season 7--perhaps they're trying to stay up with the trends--but I really wish they wouldn't. I was further distressed by their preview montage which advertised more clashing behaviors and incidents coming up this season. Why this new approach? They should really leave the spice and intrigue and trash to the other shows and just concentrate on what has made them successful in the past.
The thought that this shift might be the new norm for this show leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)