Child Testing

Recently, I have been preparing for the December 11th ACT. This Sunday I took a practice test that took three hours. Three hours for a practice test that has no meaning. Time that I could have spent doing something else, anything else. I have never agreed with the reliance on testing to get into college. There are many elements that decide how well a student will do at any given college, and multiple choice questions hardly determine a student's potential to be a successful college student. Students may get good grades because they try hard, but are not good on standardized tests. Students who gets good grades because they try hard will likely try hard in college and do well there. But, because they don't know when to use who, or whom, it might prevent them from getting into the college they want.

In rich suburbs like the north shore, more people can afford private tutors that can boost an ACT score by as much as five points - a huge difference. Not every student who is wealthy enough to afford tutors is smarter than other college applicants. Also, in suburbs like the north shore, parents can afford to have their students tested to see if they have a processing disorder, or some other problem that might make them impaired taking tests. Unfortunately, many kids in less affluent areas are not able to be tested to determine that they have a learning problem that could get them extra time taking tests. The fact that colleges put so much weight on these tests shows that the American school system rewards those with access to special services, rather than measuring everybody's abilities equally.

Adults have given me mixed messages about the ACT's. I heard from my parents that I will take it as many times as possible, because this may get me a slightly higher score. I have also heard from my neighbor that these tests are overvalued and that I shouldn't worry about them. Maybe if I don't do that well I won't get into all the schools I would want to get into, but whatever school you can get into can give you a good education. At the same time, my parents have "blackmailed" me by saying if I do not try hard while preparing to take the ACT, I may not be admitted to a decent college. Then they won't want to pay my tuition for a poor school, which is hard to argue with.

While reading The Crucible I found that the judges Hawthorne and Danforth  similarly blackmail Proctor by asking him if he will "confess",  to which Proctor indirectly answers "I will have my life"(126). Here, Proctor confesses that he was with the devil just because he wanted to live, and had he not confessed he would have been killed. The judges blackmail him so that they could get what they want, which is confirmation that there are witches. Parents blackmail their kids so that they can get into the colleges the parents want them to get into.

The Judge and The Teacher

I came downstairs this week to see my parents watching a French movie. My mom described the movie as a documentary type movie - but with acting. A documentary in French with English sub-titles did not at first appeal to me. I sat down planning to watch five minutes, but ended up watching the movie for over an hour.   The movie, The Class, is based on an auto-biographical novel written by a teacher. The teacher who wrote the novel is cast in the movie as the teacher in a French class (like our English class). The movie was filmed with a group of students aged about 15, who improvised and acted, but in such a way that it seems like a documentary. The school was located in a poor, multi-ethnic neighborhood in Paris. Although there were some similarities in the way the students behaved, there were many contrasts between this poor Parisian school and New Trier, and it kept my attention.  For a more complete description of the movie click <a href=http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090204/REVIEWS/902049991/1023> Here </a>. 

A central theme in this movie was the power struggle within the classroom between the students and the teachers. The teacher would talk, followed by students talking out and challenging what he said, often showing disrespect. Often, arguments would erupt between the teacher and the class. The students talked out because they did not fear the punishment, unlike New Trier students. In a less competitive school, the kids cared about their grades significantly less than New Trier students care about their grades. Therefore, the teacher threatening to take points off their grades for speaking out is a less successful form of punishment. Many students would swear in class and disrespect their teacher, regardless of what effect it has on their grade. When a student's behavior became extremely disruptive he could be sent to a disciplinary committee to see if he should be expelled from the school. 

The way the students stood up to their teachers, and did not fear consequences, made me think about how different this was from our school. At New Trier, for the most part, students fear punishment and do not swear to their teachers or classmates, or show disrespect for their teachers in general. At New Trier, we can be punished for significantly more minor incidents. For example, just openly disagreeing with the teacher can easily get a student sent to the hallway or adviser chair. The teachers also control the students' grades. Since the teachers control the students' grades, students will suck up to their teachers in order to have a better grade. Students will do extra credit assignments, and tell their teachers that they are good students and do their homework and try hard, so they can get a better grade. Performing for grades is directly connected to our ultimate goal of being accepted at the best college possible. In the French school, students didn't seem to have that motivation.

In The Crucible, the judges' power over the townspeople is very similar. In Salem not many people speak out against the court in fear of retribution. Since the judges hold so much power, and can condemn someone to death for behaving like a witch, people want to be on the good side of the judge. One will claim that they are a good religious person, and have gone to church in the past, just so the judges can see them as a good person who could not be considered a witch. 

Both the teacher and the judge hold so much power over their class, or townspeople, that they receive respect. The class and the town want to be on the good side of the person in power, so they suck up to their judge or teacher in order to save themselves. But is this really respect?

"family" map

This week we have been working on a project that focuses on civil liberties. While researching civil liberties I often came across the Patriot Act. This act is designed for America's national security, and to protect the country from terrorism. Among other activities, the Patriot Act allows for private phone conversations to be listened in on by the government.

Earlier today I received a test message message from AT&T FamilyMap reminding me that I can be located by my mom (the phone's location is available on an online map). Although my mom is the only person who is able to access the service that tracks the location of my cell phone, I am still uncomfortable with the knowledge that she can track me down whenever she doesn't know where I am. AT&T never asked my permission for this, and simply allowed it to happen because of my mother's request. I feel that this breaches my personal rights, and that this is basically 'big brother' watching me without my consent.

The Patriot act similarly watches over people for national security, but dismisses our personal rights. I feel very uncomfortable with my mom being able to track me down online without my consent, but even more uncomfortable that the government can just as easily listen to my conversations without my consent.

A Slaveholder's Diary

Earlier today my mom gave me an article from the New York Times that my older brother sent to her about a widowed plantation mistress' diary (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/a-slaveholders-diary/). The plantation owner, Mrs. Brevard, writes that her slaves are actually happy in their role as slaves, and that the northerner's outrage is the reason the slaves became "restless" in their role. She also describes how she is angry at female slaves for being "impudent".

This reminds me of "Sambo", the black boy who was not smart, but always happy, an idea many white people believed in. Also, describing female slaves as impudent women reminds me of how in "The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass", Frederick Douglass describes how a housewife was jealous of the female slaves for their sexual relationships with her husband, even though the female slaves were likely forced to do so.

The most interesting part of this article is how the widower describes herself very fair, and that "no soul on this earth is more willing for justice" than she. I find this so interesting because she herself has over two-hundred slaves, and is upset with the election of Lincoln because she cannot think of a world where she lives side by side with blacks. Also, it is very interesting that she says that slaves are happy in their role, but also admits they hate her for being their slaveowner. In addition, she is angry at the female slaves for their sexual relations with the men, when in reality she must know that it is not their choice. She brushes off the fact that her logic is flawed, blaming the women for the men's infidelity, and admitting that slaves would prefer to be free.

manipulation

Young children are very susceptible to adult influence. Most kids have the same political beliefs as their parents and are fans of same sports teams. Kids whose teachers teach them a particular historical perspective are more likely to view those historical events with the same prejudices. 

Last week we talked about how the Puritans taught their children that behavior was an indicator of predestination status. Social control was highly valued in Puritan society. From a young age kids behaved very well, because Puritans believed that well-behaved children were more likely to be predestined to go to heaven.

Parents today exaggerate the importance of small problems, so their kids will learn and behave better in the future. Kids can get into trouble with their parents for things that are not even their fault. For example, kids often get into trouble about their grades, when it easily may not be their fault for receiving the grade they were given. Really, the kid may not be smart enough to get a better grade in a class. In addition, the teacher may have predetermined that the student is a "B student" or "C student" and the kid may really struggle against that to raise his grade. In reality it may not have to do with work ethic, laziness, or other factors within the student's control. 

Is it just as bad to scare kids by saying they won't go to heaven if they behave badly, as it is punishing kids for things that are out of their control? We looked at the Puritans as crazy for influencing their kids' behavior through religious ABC books, and threats about going to heaven, but we too are crazy for punishing kids because they do not reach parents' expectations. If a kid doesn't do as well in school as he would like isn't that enough punishment? Although parents may think punishment will help the child become more like themselves (as in politics and sports), sometimes the child does not have room for improvement, which creates even more anger in the parents when the child does not improve. Parents should not manipulate their children into becoming what they think they should be.

And I Support This Message

During this election season, political candidates seem willing to do anything to win, or more accurately, to beat the other candidate. In commercials, candidates on both sides typically say something positive about themselves, followed by something very negative about their opponent that may or may not contain some truth, but is often exaggerated. This morning on the radio I heard an advertisement for some minor political candidate, who said she was going to bring change to Washington, and that her opponent was untrustworthy. The advertisement was paid for by her friends. After the commercial I had no idea if the candidate was independent, republican, democratic, or in the tea party. The point is that these candidates, regardless of their party, say something that everyone agrees with, such as their intention to create more jobs, but keep it so general that there is nothing controversial in their message. Of course, they also fail to  explain how they will accomplish what they promise, and they blame their opponent for something everyone hates, like being untrustworthy.

Instead of proudly voicing their opinions, and saying why they believe they are better than their opponent, candidates do whatever it takes to put themselves into office. Now although I would like to blame the candidates for their black and white advertisements, our society is to blame. These commercials are created because this is what the audience responds to; brief sentences requiring little thought designed to bring out an emotional response in the listener. I believe there should be tougher restrictions on commercials requiring that they tell the truth, so the audience doesn't have to be exposed to so much false advertising.

Meta-Post

For me, the most interesting part of the blog is appreciating the connection between what we talk about class, and various current event in our world. I find that each week there is something we talk about in class that comes to mind when I read or listen to current news events. I've compared migrant workers to slaves, and a quote from Juan Williams to a picture, "A Negro in his Homeland". The connections are not made by sitting down, thinking of what our class is talking about, and then looking at news articles. For my blogs, I find connections while writing notes in class or just thinking, and  can just jot down a connection to expand on later. I now realize that at the beginning of the year I wrote about too many connections, the majority of which were too weak to use in my blog because the connections were obviously forced. For example, when we talked about collaboration, I thought of a blog about how many smaller newspapers take articles from larger papers like the New York Times, a concept  I learned in my journalism class. Although there is a connection, there is no debatable stance I could take while writing this, making it an uninteresting and less provocative blog. Now I make fewer connections, but connections that are stronger, and can relate to a bigger picture, and that are more controversial. On a more recent blog titled Monolithic, I claim that Juan Williams comment that when he sees Muslims in airports dressed in Muslim garb, who first and foremost identify themselves as Muslim, he gets scared. I make the claim that he is being a racist. This stance is more controversial, and opens my blog up for debate, because many people believe what Juan Williams said was not in fact racist, but just an honest expression of how he feels.

Also, I find a key part of the blog the specific title I assign to the post. Although I sometimes choose generic titles that simply state the topic of discussion, I also choose to have a more provocative title such as "Human Stock" or "Muslim Problem" because they are more likely to grab readers from class, who, for the most part, are my audience. Not only does the title grab readers attention, but it can determine the tone for a specific post. A post titled "Human Stock" sets up the point I try to make in my blog, that we care too much about how colleges may see us, and not actually do things that we like to do.

Note: Read "Human Stock" as my blog

"Muslim Problem"

I watched The O'Reilly Factor with a person who considers herself a liberal, and then watched the Daily Show with a conservative.  Throughout the O'Reilly Factor, the liberal viewer was upset by contradictions she believed O'Reilly made, and his constant and nasty name-calling. This show is made for a certain audience of people, just like The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass was written for a specific group of people.  

Douglass thanks "his providence" many times in the book for his good fortune, because Douglass wants to appeal to his readers, who are almost entirely Christian. Bill O'Reilly talks about a "Muslim Problem" in our country. He considers this "problem" to be the cause of the terror attacks on 9/11. The current manifestation of this problem, according to O'Reilly, is that moderate Muslims do not speak out against extremists. This appeals to much of his audience, which is still very angry and disapproving of Muslims in general. By going on TV and saying that he has negative feelings for Muslims, he gains fans and higher ratings.

When I watched the Daily Show with a conservative, he was upset that there was no conservative voice when Jon Stewart, the host, mocked a variety of Fox hosts. This show is also directed to a certain audience of people. Jon Stewart shows a string of clips of Fox anchors talking about how tragic Juan Williams' firing is, and overall makes Fox look bad for overly dramatizing the situation. This appeals to his audience, which is mostly younger, and mostly liberal, by making a conservative news source look bad, but in a comical and irreverent way.

From this I have seen that depending on the audience, not only the points a show can make are different, but the entire format of the show can depend on which audience the show is targeting.

Monolithic

This week in class we looked at pictures, and saw how they represented slaves as a monolithic entity. For example, the title of the picture “The Negro in his home Country” makes all blacks seem the same. By using the word “the” it unifies all blacks as if all blacks are the same.

This weekend the Fox News Network’s show Huckabee, hosted by former pastor and Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, interviewed the recently fired news analyst for NPR, Juan Williams. Williams has not been fired from his other job as a political commentator for Fox News. NPR fired Williams because Williams stated on another Fox News show that he felt scared and anxious when he saw Muslims in Muslim garb at airports. He says he is not a bigot. If someone were to say “when I see black people on the street I get scared”, is that not considered racist? Juan Williams is scared of all Muslims in Muslim garb, because of fourteen Muslims involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Therefore, he sees all Muslims as a single monolithic entity. Sometimes, even today in this country, everyone in a race or a religion will be grouped together and assigned a negative characteristic by some people.

Human Stock

After watching the video  clip from A Race to Nowhere, I began to think about how this stress in school  relates to happiness. This got me thinking about Finland, and how recently they were polled the happiest country in the world. I wondered what type of schooling they had in Finland, and how the schooling may directly lead to their happiness. Interestingly enough, Mr. O'Connor soon added that Finish school were taught by team teachers. From an article I read (http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/world/Finland.html) I learned that the school day is shorter, and there are more frequent breaks in the day. I believe relaxation and enjoyment in free time leads not only to happier people, but more successful students. As Mr. O'Connor said in class, New Trier has the fewest number of school days, and highest average on test scores. Although there must be some school, school should not force young adults to spend the majority of their time studying or in school, but rather enjoying life, and finding true passions.

We also discussed in class how grades in many districts could be checked online, and Mr. Bolos compared checking grades online to checking the stock market. High school students care way to much about their human stock, how colleges look at them. Recently, I became a member on a student board for an organization called Haven, which helps teenagers deal with problems without having to confront their parents. At the first meeting the various positions, president, vice president, etc. were announced. My peers told me they only cared about what their resume would look like, they wouldn't put in the full effort their position deserved. This is because their motivation is to build their resume for application to college, not to find a passion, or help others, or give back to the community. We are expected to volunteer and give our time to service, so this just creates another requirement that has to be fulfilled in order to be competitive on our college applications.

Gay Marriage

While working on my interview and writing the opening in italics, I wrote that my interviewee, a woman, had a child and was married. I emailed this to her, and she corrected me by saying that she wasn't legally married. This is because my interviewee's partner was also a woman, and same-sex marriage is not legal in Illinois. Although I knew this, it still seemed strange to me. They have a child, own a house, live and work in our community, and have been together as a couple for several years, yet they are not married. At first I just thought about how strange the situation was, but soon I began thinking about what implications this law has. First, they cannot share healthcare. Although my interviewee's job should also cover her partner's healthcare, it does not. Her partner is self-employed, and therefore must buy her own healthcare separately, which is much more expensive. Second, the fact they cannot celebrate being together with a wedding  infers that society chooses to reject their relationship. Third, if one of them had to go to the hospital, the other partner would not even be allowed to visit her, because "legally" they aren't family. Also, my interviewee gave birth, and her partner had to go through a long and stressful process of adopting that son, which was also expensive, because "legally" the child wasn't hers. Even if our society is not yet ready to accept same-sex marriage, can't we start by limiting stupid restrictions like these?

Sexist Tokenism

After talking about racial tokenism in class, I watched ESPN at home and began to think that there is more than just racial tokenism. ESPN has several women reporters and anchors on their shows including Hannah Storm, Linda Cohn, and the infamous Rachel Nichols, as well as several others. I realized ESPN talks about female sports for maybe a total of a five minutes a day, for WNBA Finals, the undefeated UCONN Women's basketball team, and Venus or Serena Williams. Although they talk very briefly about female sports, they have a comparably large number of female reporters.  Every time my mom sees a female reporter she complains about how revealing their clothes are, and that ESPN probably thinks they can attract male viewers by showcasing these women as objects of beauty. In addition, ESPN wants to appear a diverse network, and wants to appear un-biased towards women. ESPN goes out of their way to choose these female reporters. Some reporters, like Rachel Nichols, are not good at their job, but ESPN keeps these female anchors to to give the impression that they support gender diversity.

The Modern Slave

As we discussed slaves in class this week, I began to think of my news, The Colbert Report, and last week when the  president of the United Farm Workers of America came on the show. He talked about a "take our jobs" campaign in which any American citizen could work in place migrant workers. Three people took them up on their offer. This means that although many complain that these migrant workers are taking jobs that should be reserved for Americans, they are not. The jobs are laborious and the pay is unacceptable to most U.S. citizens.

There are differences between slaves and working migrant workers, but there are also similarities. Both typically have physically demanding jobs in the fields, both have few protections and workers' rights, and both groups are unfairly demeaned and disrespected by this country. Slaves were hated for racial reasons and for being "inferior" to the whites, while similarly people today want to have all the migrant workers deported. Slaves were hated even by northerners, often in fear that they would, once liberated, take the jobs of many lower class workers, similar to how people fear these migrant workers take our jobs. 

Secret Messages

Modern politics and media is filled with secret messages. Recently, a rally was held on the Lincoln Monument, by Fox political commentator, Glenn Beck. Another rally is set for October 30th on the Lincoln Monument by Steven Colbert, and Jon Stewart, political comedians.  These rallies are not coincidentally happening near each other in time.

Although the rally may be by two comedians, and the rally's titles are "The March to Keep Fear Alive", and  "Restore Sanity", the secret meaning behind this is more important. Colbert and Stewart are hosting this rally as a response to Glenn Beck's rally. Although Glenn Beck may not have spoken about political topics at the rally, isn't the mere fact that Glenn Beck hosts a rally with Sarah Palin a political event?

When conservatives or liberals hold rallies, regardless of what they talk about, the rally has a secret underlying message. People will hear through the media that Glenn Beck had a popular rally, and this will bring attention to the conservative agenda, and likewise the Stewart/Colbert rally will mobilize liberal voters.  The younger demographic has not been voting as much in the midterms according to an article about the Colbert/Stewart Rally (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/0917/Stephen-Colbert-Jon-Stewart-rally-Might-TV-duo-affect-Election-2010?sms_ss=email). Rallies by Steven Colbert,  and Jon Stewart could help remind young people to vote (especially for democrats because Colbert and Stewart are liberal). So, although these rallies may not be openly political, there is a secret political meaning underneath.

Modern Chapter

This week our class discussed textbooks, and what the textbooks focused on, determined by how many words were in a section. I found that American textbooks generally have an optimistic bias towards America's past. Chapters focus less on rebellions against corrupt public officials, which would paint America in a bad light, and more so on topics related the ways the government is revolted against for doing good, such as protecting Indian rights with Bacon's rebellion, which demonstrates a fair government.

Textbooks about American history are written in an optimistic way because the publishers want their product to be purchased. Negative textbooks ripping America are not as likely to be bought by boards of education because they feel they should promote patriotism and allegiance to the country. In the same way that textbooks are created for their audience, the media are also selling a product. American media (newspapers, television, etc.) does not focus as much on international issues as much as American topics. This is because their audience, the American public, wants to hear about topics directly related to them, and not about issues of importance to other countries.

Recently, floods in Pakistan have devastated millions of people, killing many, and leaving others homeless. In America, coverage for this particular topic was rare. Is this because Americans are shallow people who do not care about listening to topics that do not pertain to them? Does our media control what we have access to, and the less coverage of the topic the less we care about it?

Certainty

This week in class, Mr. O'Connor told us Mr. Bolos had been married twice. Mr. O'Connor later told our class that a group had asked him to confirm their belief that Mr. Bolos had been married to Jayne Hartman as well as Joan Gallagher, and he answered that he believed that was correct. Later on in the week he explained to us that the way we ask our questions can sometimes determine the answer we get. This can also be true in how we look at situations through our own experience, which can sometimes determine the way we draw our conclusions.

While thinking of a blog to write this week, I remembered an article on ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100813) that discussed player contract negotiations. The article went on to discuss how fans can only see players who ask for more money as greedy and selfish. From our perspectives, a player with a twelve million dollar contract for two years, who asks for millions more, does in fact seem greedy and selfish.

While it may seem selfish to us, the players care less about the money and more about the respect. If a new AIS teacher got a job at New Trier for more money than exerienced AIS teachers who have worked fifteen years for the school, and have proven themselves be better teachers, the experienced teachers would be angry. Even if the these teachers were happy with their original salary, it is unfair to give a new, and less experienced teacher more money. This is excactly how many NFL players feel. A rookie entering the NFL often makes significantly more money than veteran players, which is why so many players holdout on their contracts. Although fans may believe a player is greedy and selfish for not playing because they want more money, they are rarely certain of the player's underlying intentions. It is not fair to compare an NFL player's salary to your own. They should be judged against their peers. Are we certain that veteran players making six million a year don't deserve a million more, as an acknowledgement of their experience, and proven ability?

First post

sfgsdf