Matt Carberry (kingpin248) wrote,
Matt Carberry
kingpin248

Same topic, round two (...fight!)

The comment appended to my last entry triggered a few further thoughts, which I present below.

1. I was making a relative argument, not an absolute one. In other words, "Hofstra's campus is not one of the ten most beautiful in the country" does NOT mean "Hofstra has an ugly campus." Beauty is most certainly not scientific; it is, as the saying goes, in the eye of the beholder. And in my eye, even after doing my best to set aside my own biases, I feel there are ten more beautiful campuses in the United States than my current one. I did not mean to imply that Hofstra has no redeeming physical attributes. Quite the contrary - as the comment notes, there are areas of the campus that are plenty bucolic, especially when contrasted against the surroundings. Which leads to...

2. The campus must be evaluated as a whole. You can't cherry pick certain areas and claim that they alone are representative of the entire place. The fact that Hofstra is bisected by a major highway must be considered. This is no fault of the University - Hempstead Turnpike was there before Hofstra even existed - but you can't ignore it. The same goes for the parking lots fashioned from runways of the former Mitchel Air Force Base. Speaking of which...

3. Campus beautification should not be pursued to the exclusion of all else, nor is it in any way indicative of quality. Take those parking lots, for example. If you got rid of half the parking spaces on North Campus and replaced them with trees and other various shrubbery, Hofstra is almost certainly more beautiful - but not necessarily better. Nearly everything else President Rabinowitz cited in his letter - that is, the stuff Hofstra is doing (as opposed to what others are saying about it) - is improving the University in all respects.
Tags: hofstra
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 2 comments