Is there any way to reverse this major party polarization we have created? I find myself wishing that our country could find some middle ground on a lot of issues, but because everyone is either on one side or the other, any negotiating just becomes arguing.

"Sectionalism is a partiality for a particular place, like when a US politician shows little interest in other countries or when someone who lives in Alaska only cares about policies and laws that directly affect her state." https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sectionalism

This made me laugh, what an unexpected analogy that still landed a really relevant point.

Why doesn't this exist anymore? What made them abolish these programs?

This surprised me, I would have guessed the reverse. But maybe citizens are more likely to vote for the party in a presidential election, and then they are more likely to vote for the individual in Congressional polls. I'm not sure, I could be misinformed and be making the wrong assumption.

So this could help, in reducing the relentless campaign season, but how open is the United States to such a major change?

I think this is true, especially with all of the hype surrounding the NRA against the desire for gun control legislature.

I really liked this analogy, very applicable and I would never have thought to describe politicians behavior this way.

I like how this was stated, because I do really believe the representative should do what their constituents want, even if it isn't what they believe in. That stance is probably extremely hard to take, and I know this is not how it works 100% of the time in real life, but to me that is the textbook definition of a representative democracy.

I think this is something that a lot of the American public may not understand. On social media I notice a lot of people talk a big game about all these things that need to be changed in our current administration and how they would never make a decision like they did. I would like to see them walk in a government official's shoes, because our role as the governed is completely different than theirs as the governing.

This sounds a lot like how the college application process went for me. It didn't matter how "in-range" my test scores were or how good I thought my essay was, I still did everything in my power to make sure everything was perfect. Because until that acceptance letter came, I couldn't guarantee that I was in.

This is right along the lines of what I mentioned earlier, that I often find myself in classes wondering "What does this have to do with me?" or "How am I ever going to use this in real life?". If the professors were to give me some practical application, then I would have a more valuable reason to want to know more.

I think the entire purpose of a higher education is to fuel our curiousity about the world around us by giving us the skills and knowledge to pursue what we have questions about. By focusing more on covering vast amounts of information, our curiosity is squandered because we feel we have no choice but to just memorize all the facts so we can pass the assessment.

I would love if professors, assuming the situational factors such as class size permitted, would think outside of the box more often in terms of assessments. I don't consider myself a great test taker, so anytime I can give a presentation or complete a project in order to show my understanding I often feel much more confident in my ability to show what I have learned.

I totally agree with what you all are saying about how without practice, the lecture material has a way lower chance of actually sticking in the student's brain. As someone who doesn't strictly "memorize" things well, I really appreciate it when a professor highlights the practical application of what we are learning and makes it relevant and shows me how I can use this information in real life.