This morning in history class we had a debate over whether it was a good idea to include a historian on a lifeboat in a Great Flood the Second situation. I was happy to be on the side that was against bringing a historian. Or sorry, not even a historian, a History Professor. So someone who not only has no real people skills or practical life skills, but has devoted his/her life to teaching twenty somethings how to look at things that happened ages ago. Surprisingly though (or maybe not seeing as the majority of people in the class are history majors) the vote was tied. I think the whole debate is unrealistic. The situation was supposed to be that the flood wiped out all civilization except for the students at the university. It is supposedly up to these kids to decide on one professor to take up the last spot. But don't you think realistically that the profs would be dictating who got the seats? And in trying to be diplomatic they would likely choose one person from each facutly, the majority of whom would be women so that we could repopulate faster. I think a person's genetic capability would be more of a factor than their knowledge and the potential they have to share it around.
I've been getting nose bleeds all afternoon. I think someone is trying to tell me something...
If I hadn't left this History essay to the very last moment, it would probably be the most fascinating and informative project of the semester. Nothing like studying brutal massacres and intertribal relations to keep you on your toes.
