“This year’s budgeting process was especially challenging,” said Student Senate/Executive Board Liaison Jonathan Stack ’13 in a letter prefacing the report. Student enrollment has dropped over the past few years, he explained, which meant they had to work harder to ensure that Union programs and activities got the funding they need. Other obstacles include declining bookstore profits (“a trend currently active at the majority of campus bookstores across the country,” according to Stack), since more than half of the Union’s non-fee income comes from the bookstore.

The result was a $20.50 increase in the undergraduate fee and an $11.00 increase in the graduate fee. Intercollegiate Athletics was cut by four percent, including a decrease of $16,390 for Men’s Hockey, in order to avoid raising the activities fee any further.

Over the next few pages, the report gave a historical perspective with graphs mapping change over time in the budget, total cost of undergraduate attendance, and enrollment. Expenses have been lowered by three percent and undergraduate enrollment is projected to drop by five percent, while the activities fee and total cost of attendance have trended upwards.

Another section describes the function of class dues, which remain constant next year at $13.50 for undergraduates and $12 for graduate students. These funds are available for class events like parties or other gatherings, organized by a separate council for each year.

In the income section, the report lists funds received from services offered in the Union building, such as Father’s Marketplace, the Rathskeller, and Ben & Jerry’s. Each of these contributes a portion of their profits back to the Union, totalling $212,297.04 for the year.

The full report has been approved for public release by the Senate. Any questions about the document should be directed to activity-fee@union.rpi.edu.

The often-ignored problems are the diversity of backgrounds and educational goals. The gap between incoming students who have seen the material before and those who haven’t is significant in technical fields. In calculus courses, the difference can be between needing to brush up on derivatives and not knowing what a derivative is. In addition, some students are just taking calculus so they can use derivatives for engineering, while others need to understand more fundamental concepts, theorems, and proofs for their majors.

Students who feel they already know what they’re doing often sleep through 1000-level classes (and even some higher-level ones). Drills for practice quickly turn into busywork. For example, computer science major—even a freshman—doesn’t learn much from blindly re-implementing basic code. They’d much rather be doing real problem solving, even if the programming itself is simple. That rarely happens until junior and senior year.

On the other hand, there are many people who struggle through introductory courses. If you haven’t read about it before, mechanics is counterintuitive. If you’re not a physics major, you don’t care about proving Newton’s Laws—you just need to know what they are. It doesn’t help that there are people who already took AP Physics in your class answering all of the professor’s questions, making it seem like the entire class is keeping up.

This issue isn’t unique to Rensselaer, of course. Most schools have these same problems for the same reasons. However, there are ways to make things better. RPI’s physics department has the right idea by offering honors intro classes. This lets the professor do important proofs for students who need to know them, and move slower for people who may not have as much background knowledge coming in. Other majors might also work better if split into regular and honors courses. It can be difficult to juggle students who are ahead and the ones who are behind; sometimes, taking the middle road is bad for everyone.

God (A Play)

This was my favorite of the three performances, which is saying something because I didn’t really like it. The play started off by almost immediately breaking the fourth wall, and proceeded to break the fifth, sixth, and possibly seventh walls (which shouldn’t have ever existed in the first place). The chorus was monotonous, with no real feeling, and essentially just interrupted, making the play seem even longer. The play’s script seemed like it was haphazardly thrown together; it literally made me feel sick with how little sense it made (even half of the cast stormed out in frustration with it during the performance). The only point it achieved was proving that there was no point to the entire story.  

Moving onto the cast, there were a couple bright spots.  Luc Lagace ’14 and Will Johnson ’12, who played Diabetes and Hepatitis respectively, played somewhat interesting characters rather well, and made them believable.  Alyssa Montalbano ’13, who was a pretty face more than anything else, did at least have some personality that brought character to the story, in contrast to the majority of the cast. Kent Morris ’12 was the only other actor worth mentioning, as his ability to work within the confines of his relatively small roles brightened the play. All in all, the writing of the play was worse than its performers, but it was still my favorite of the night.

The Fascinating Foundling

When this act ended, the people I was with asked me to explain it, and it took me less than 30 seconds, which was much shorter than the play took to explain the same thing. The actors were fine for what they were acting out, but the play itself was ghastly boring and left me mostly feeling annoyed. The play was comprised of fantastically and unnecessarily extended conversations to set up a freakishly farfetched finish. The middle of the play was a single 20 minute long conversation that was both uninteresting and far longer than it needed to be. I most enjoyed watching Kevan Donlon ’12, who played Brabazon. Donlon was a pretty fine actor, and while everything he did was ridiculously overdone, that’s probably how the character was written and at least he was gone fairly fast.

For a finale, the audience learned that females will always get their way no matter what a man feels or thinks, which is a good lesson to learn (and the reason I’m writing this review), although there should be a far more painless way to teach it.

Suddenly, Last Summer

The entire play is about a woman moping over her dead son, defending him from attacks both imaginary and non-existent, all while talking to a man deemed “Doctor Sugar,” who was a passenger on the most boring verbal roller coaster ever. There were a variety of plot points, and the story turned out to be significant, but it was overshadowed by the fact that everything dragged out longer than it needed to be. The climax took 20 minutes alone and left me wholly unsatisfied, and all said and done, it took over an hour and a half for this play alone, when the content only needed about half of that time.

This play did have the best cast performances of the evening’s three acts.  I felt that I could understand the character’s convoluted lives. Violet, played by Mary DeVarney ’12, was constantly out of breath, which obviously gave her more time to remember her lines, but also made her impossible to understand about half of the time. My favorite characters in the play were Sister Felicity (Marisa Gallego) and Miss Foxhill (Madeline Heller ’14), largely because they were able to convey their characters even though (or possibly especially because) they talked the least.  

Overall, the Players’ performance wasn’t as bad as the choices of plays they chose to perform, and maybe some of the directorial choices could have been different, too. Plays that have fifteen minutes or more between plot points, when a plot is present at all, aren’t very good for a college audience; for that matter, I have trouble thinking of any audience who wouldn’t have been bored to tears even if these plays were put on by professionals. There were some good actors, and some that should probably never act on a stage again, but the choice of plays was the biggest problem, and the main reason that the Evening of Performance was not nearly as enjoyable as I expect the musical will be.

An Evening of Performance 2012 wraps up this weekend, February 24 and 25 at 8 pm, at the Playhouse. Tickets are $5 with an RPI ID and general admission is $10.

Unfortunately, the game did not start well for the Engineers as their shooting touch was off and Skidmore jumped out with the first nine points of the game. RPI’s deficit would reach 13 points before it started to bring the game closer as two free throws by senior Nicole Monroe made the game 25-23 in favor of Skidmore. After trading baskets, Skidmore closed out the half with six-straight points to go into the break with the 33-25 advantage.

The second half did not start any better as more missed shots and opportunities by the Engineers allowed Skidmore to extended its lead to 15 points in just over five minutes. However, RPI began to turn things around as it once again mounted a comeback. After RPI got within one point, Skidmore answered with four straight points. Straight away a layup by freshman Jen Rock and a three-pointer by senior Sarah Wetmore tied the game with two minutes to play.

Skidmore then finished the game just as it started with a 9-0 run to close out the match with the Thoroughbreds ahead 59-50. The loss meant RPI was in a three-way tie for second place and needed a win against Clarkson University on Senior Day to confirm its position in the playoffs.

RPI got off the blocks well against Clarkson as it scored the first five points and went on to have an eight-point lead after nine minutes. The Engineers continued to press and extend their lead as they hit 15 points with just under four minutes to play. Clarkson responded and was able to cut that lead in half by halftime as the score was 29-21 heading into the break.

After the intermission, points by freshman Bailei Tetrault, and seniors Lauren Hayes and Hillary McKinley gave RPI a 13-point lead in just over three minutes of play. A pair of free throws from sophomore Kyleigh Oliveira soon gave the Engineers a 19-point lead with the score at 44-25. The lead would never shrink below 15 points and would hit as many as 24 during the rest of the contest. McKinley finished with 12 points to lead the team as Hayes and Rock added another 10 points each in the 66-45 victory.

The win confirmed RPI’s place in the Liberty League Tournament in which it will be the second seed. The Engineers will host Vassar College, the number three seed, today at 7 pm at the East Campus Arena. Should RPI win, the Engineers will play in the tournament finale on Saturday.

Fortun explained that the proposal for the major “had to go through reviews within the STS Department, within the School of HASS, and at the institute level.” Following these reviews, a committee composed of three faculty members of other universities took another look at the program. This involved visiting RPI on several occasions and eventually submitting a report. The committee’s report was supportive, but it made clear that “RPI would have to provide needed resources in faculty and staff for it to succeed,” said Fortun. The New York State Board of Education then reviewed the proposal, giving its approval during the fall of 2011. By this time, students had already shown interest in the program; several had already declared they would major in Sustainability Studies once it had been approved. During this review period, the proposal was also presented to faculty across campus, “with the goal of creating synergism between different programs,” Fortun added.

The program is essentially a combination of humanities, social sciences, and technology. For example, students gain insight into how environmental issues have progressed both scientifically and politically. Using this historical background as a platform, students then learn about the current state of sustainability efforts both in terms of technology and government policy. The major also involves a “technology” requirement; students specialize in a particular field of the natural sciences to give perspective on issues of sustainability. This requirement results in an opportunity for students pursuing the degree to consider dual majors, Fortun explained.

When it comes to dual majors, though, most only consider those majors which are very closely associated with sustainability, such as biology, earth sciences, or environmental engineering, said Fortun. However, she stresses that the sustainability studies major has the potential to pair with many more majors, particularly those that many would not normally associate with the field. These include math, computer science, physics, and civil engineering. Such a range of potential dual majors should, Fortun hopes, encourage more students to become interested in both the major and the subject as a whole.

Joseph DiLuzio ’12 explained that he became interested in the sustainability studies major due to his “lofty” goals. As a student majoring in mechanical engineering and design, innovation, and society, DiLuzio felt that his skills could be used for something of greater importance than “product design.” He wants his “degrees to reflect what kind of person [he] will be.” With a degree in sustainability studies, DiLuzio said he can focus on his goal of “fixing the world” through the development of a greener, more sustainable society.

Elizabeth Anderson ’14, on the other hand, decided to pursue the degree simply due to her interest in the environment. In order to accomplish her goal of earning a graduate degree in science and technology studies or anthropology, Anderson decided to become a sustainability studies major to prepare herself while engaging in work she finds interesting.

Research in sustainability, Fortun mentioned, has the potential to significantly improve societal life. Current problems, such as reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuels, oil spills, and other forms of environmental pollution could be solved.

Classes in the program’s curriculum include Consumer Culture; Environment and Law; Environment and Society; Globalization and Development; and Oil Politics.

Fortun hopes that, in the future, there will be a sizable number of sustainability studies majors, students who choose to dual major in the program, and individuals who choose to minor in the subject. Overall, she hopes that more students become interested, “knowing that what we do today” will greatly impact life “for generations that follow, in locales around the world.”

Five years ago, my friend Gino first introduced me to the world of Linux. It sounded cool—a stable, customizable operating system that doesn’t cost any money? I was interested, so he gave me an install CD … and what looked like fifty pages of tutorial on setting up a dual boot.

I did not install that CD. I needed my computer to work so I could write a paper. Linux looked hard, and I’d rather have a functioning Windows computer. I gave the CD back to Gino the next week without using it.

Today, I use free software almost exclusively—I haven’t booted Windows at all this semester. However, I haven’t changed all that much; free software has just gotten better.

Over the past few years, it’s suddenly gotten easy to run Linux. Distributions (flavors of Linux) like Ubuntu and Linux Mint are catering to less technical users like never before. You can install Ubuntu alongside Windows at the click of a button (just Google “Ubuntu Windows installer”—it’s the first result). There are “App Stores” where you can download and install programs like Google Chrome and Skype. I got Starcraft II to install without any problems. Linux isn’t just for terminal wizards anymore. You don’t have to manually edit the boot record or recompile the kernel. Almost everything just works.

The funny thing is, the longer I’ve been here, the more of a terminal wizard I’ve become. I’m not some guru who’s been on a UNIX command line for fifty years, but I find myself using the terminal for more and more things. You never have to use it, but sometimes it’s faster or cleaner to use plain text than a cluttered GUI. VIM has become my favorite way to write code—or anything else, like this editorial.

Anyway, if you don’t feel like paying for Windows 8, try Linux Mint or Ubuntu instead. You get a free, modern operating system that doesn’t blue screen and is just as good (if not better) for day-to-day operation like web surfing, e-mail, and homework. You can even save a Windows partition for gaming, if you’re into that.

Why do I care if you use Linux? Because the bigger the userbase, the better it gets. The more people report bugs, the fewer bugs there will be in the next release. The more users request support from third-party software, the more vendors will publish for the platform. I already think Linux is an excellent piece of software, but there’s always room for improvement.

If you don’t want to switch operating systems, you can still use free software on a PC or Mac. If you’ve ever had to worry about which version of PowerPoint the school computer will have, you can use a portable version of OpenOffice instead and know exactly how your presentation will look. GIMP may not be the nicest-looking program, but it gets the job done without costing you several hundred dollars like Adobe Photoshop.

As a concluding point, the Linux mascot is an awesome penguin named Tux. Which would you rather have—a well-dressed bird of the sea, or that annoying paperclip?

The screens light up, and the performance begins with a short intro by Dorsen, explaining chatterbots, which are programs designed to converse with either humans or other bots; musing on the differences between the chatbots and humans; and giving a bit of information about the 1971 debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault that the performance is based on. Then, the television screen lights up as the introduction to the debate is played for the audience, before the sound cuts out and the chatbots are fired up.

The conversation that ensued was quite interesting and very entertaining to witness. Unfortunately, it seemed as if the chatbots’ programs weren’t perfect, as their responses occasionally were non sequiturs, and they sometimes repeated the same few statements, but for the most part, the conversation was fluid and realistic. Another minor problem that was actually quite amusing was that the chatbots never seemed to remember what they had previously said. This led to, despite the fact that one had a male voice and the other a female voice, both of them claiming to be both genders at different points in the show. They also quoted the debate, but expressed every possible opinion about it, from liking Chomsky to liking Foucault (whose name they always mispronounced) to liking both of them to liking neither of them. Their language also ranged from civil to vulgar; at one point the male-voiced chatbot was extremely insulting to the female-voiced one.

Two parts of the performance vie for my favorite part, just for their sheer hilarity. First was the seemingly random insertion in the female-voiced chatbot’s dialogue of a proposition to view her webcam, complete with promises of women taking their clothes off. The other most hilarious part was when the chatbots sang a song together. Alternating lines, the text-to-speech program read off things like “aiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiai” and “oeoeoeoeoaiauaiauoe.” The entire audience was laughing the whole time, and again after the song was over as the chatbots proclaimed their talent.

All in all, Hello Hi There was a great show. I’m very glad I went; I greatly enjoyed it. One of my favorite things about the performance as a whole is that it was (theoretically, at least) unique—there are over 80 million ways the conversation could play out, so any other performance will be different from the one that I witnessed on Saturday night.

The Polytechnic takes the most time from me. You can usually find me in the Poly office on Sunday and Monday nights, and on Tuesday nights from 6 pm to 5 am. No, that was not a typo, The Poly usually closes around five ante meridiem. Luckily this semester, my first class on Wednesday starts at 11 am and not at 9 am.

My job as associate copy editor is to assist the copy editor in reading all the articles and check for the three parts of copy: grammar, style, and factuality. This ensures that all the articles in the newspaper make sense and are truthful. Come join me in the Copy Corner every Tuesday night—there will be free pizza!

Racquetball Club is my second most time-consuming club. There is technically practice Tuesdays through Thursdays, 7–10 pm, with cars leaving the Rensselaer Union front parking lot at 7:10 pm for the racquetball courts in Albany.

I’ve been to three tournaments so far, but have not done so well due to playing in brackets at a much higher skill level than I am at. This is the situation most of the current team is in. To remedy this, we are in need of more team members. In order to fill up the brackets, we need at least eight male players and eight female players. We are currently way below that membership objective.

One of the problems we are having with recruiting members is the lack of decent courts on campus. Currently, there are only two racquetball “courts” on campus. They are poorly maintained and are much smaller than a spec racquetball court. The incorrect size makes the on-campus courts unusable for practicing anything other than a kill shot. Hopefully in the future when RPI decides to add more athletic facilities, a few regulation racquetball courts will be given some consideration.

Even though the club is short on local resources, it is a lot of fun and I hope we get new members. I encourage you to join and try out the exciting sport, you may try out the club for a few weeks before paying membership dues. You can find more info at http://racquet.union.rpi.edu/.

The club I am least involved in at this point is the Embedded Hardware Club. I have learned a bunch from this club already. The club focuses on the programming and building of microcontrollers.

Last semester, I learned how to do surface mount soldering and built my own Arduino Nano. This semester is set to be much more exciting than the previous. On the schedule are three top-secret projects: a large Tricolor LED matrix with vision tracking, an unmanned aerial vehicle (aimed to be autonomous), and an RFID reader for our own personal use and hopefully for the future EHC lab. I’m very excited to start on the Tricolor LED matrix once we get the funding. We plan to have a weekend-long soldering session to assemble the large matrix, and will be creating a time lapse video of the build. I encourage you to join the club (and buy one of the club’s Arduino Nanos). More info about the club can be found at http://ehc.union.rpi.edu/.

Even if you can’t find yourself at home with any of these clubs, try to find a club at RPI that you enjoy. It is well worth your time and you will find yourself in contact with older students who will give you many helpful tips toward your future at RPI, as well as help you develop skills which you cannot learn just by taking courses.