[Solution]Compare and contrast Bennet’s “On Campus, failure is on the syllabus” to Rinaldi’s “(It’s great to) suck at something.”

Bennett’s “On Campus, Failure is on the Syllabus” and Rinaldi’s “(It’s Great To) Suck at Something” both address the issue of failure in a university setting. Although Bennett and Rinaldi have different outlooks on how universities should approach failure, they agree that students should be taught to understand and accept it as part of the learning experience.

Compare and contrast Bennet’s “On Campus, failure is on the syllabus” to Rinaldi’s “(It’s great to) suck at something.”

The main difference between Bennett and Rinaldi’s views is their perspectives on failure. Bennett believes that failure can be beneficial if it is embraced by faculty and incorporated into the curriculum in an intentional way. He proposes that educators use failure as a teaching tool to encourage risk-taking, experiment with innovative ideas, or enhance problem-solving skills in order to facilitate student success. On the other hand, Rinaldi takes a less structured approach to dealing with failure; he advocates for accepting it rather than attempting to avoid it altogether by giving up in fear. According to his view, even failures can hold positive outcomes such as gaining humility or developing resilience – things which are invaluable soft skills learned through experience.

Another discrepancy between the two theories lies in their suggested solutions for managing student failures: while Bennett suggests actively incorporating it into educational settings through coursework assessments like essay assignments or exams, Rinaldi encourages individuals to take ownership of their own mistakes without external guidance but also offers help when needed from support systems (mentors). This implies that although one can work towards overcoming personal challenges alone, having others who believe in them makes all the difference during hard times which ultimately brings great life lessons and experiences out of each endeavor regardless whether successful or not.

Despite these discrepancies, there are many similarities between Bennet’s and Rinaldi’s approaches towards understanding how universities should deal with student failures: both suggest acceptance as opposed avoidance when faced with difficulties; both emphasize personal accountability over external pressure; and lastly, both recognize that failing can teach valuable lessons about perseverance, resilience – often leading up to success once you’ve worked through setbacks experienced along your journey. Additionally they also share similar aspirations for fostering an environment where critical thinking is encouraged over memorization tactics (i.e., test taking versus deep understanding).

In conclusion, Bennet’s “On Campus: Failure Is On The Syllabus”andRinaldi’s “(It’s Great To) Suck At Something” present two distinct yet complementary strategies for dealing with academic failures among college students . While Bennett presents an active solution involving involvement from instructors creating difficult assignments meant to challenge students so they know what real struggles look like;Rinaldisuggests a more self reliant attitude while relying on support systems when necessary – demonstratingthat neither strategy alone will ensure optimal results but together ,the right balance between proactive facilitation as well as independent risk taking could pave way towards overall growth among learners lookingto make most out of every situation no matter what outcome may be!