Part 3:
The perspective that caught my attention the most was Sean J's parent centered way of parenting. In the majority of the families I have seen, children are being raised based on their needs. Where the parent's issues come after the child's. Sean J's way seems to allow the child to learn respect for other people at a very young age. In addition, the marital relationship is strong which sets a good example for the children and becomes the basis of a strong family.
Another interesting idea about parenting that came up when Mr. M came in to talk to us. He discussed how working class parents raise their children compared to how upper class parnts raise their children. Generally, working class parents accomplish natural growth in the child whereas the middle/upper class see children as projects to be developed. This difference between the social classes in how children are raised makes me wonder, which way is more effective, how do the results in how the children grow up to be vary?
Part 4:
This unit helped me to make sense of my own experience growing up with working class parents. Based on what was discussed on Mr. M's visit, parents in working class seem to be more leanient and natural when raising children. I was basically raised as my parents were, with some guidelines but with the freedom to make my own choices. ( which makes me wonder, do the majoirty of people raise children the way we were raised? If so, how can the cycle be broken?) The way I was raised seemed to be a more natural way of growth when compared to the developmental project that middle and upper class parents have to raise their children.
An insight that I think would be helpful for me as a parent, is to see how the type of parent affects the outcome of the child, shown in the Baumrind's article, there are three main ways of parenting and each method has different results. Looking at this from the perspective of parenting, one can see the pros and cons to these different ways of parenting. In addition, it helps to see that when a parent choses possibly one or a mixure of parenting methods, they see what problems the child would have to face and thus they would have to deal with as the parent.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Parenting 101- HW 57
How should kids be parented?
What should be the social arrangements? An extended family, nuclear family, a village, corporate day care?
I believe an extended family is beneficial in raising a child so the child has a variety of people to rely on, whereas a nuclear family seems to be very limited and forced. To me it seems that a nuclear family is staged and unrealistic. From my own personal experience and family situations I have heard from friends, most families are not nuclear families. My family I believe is effective in raising me and my brothers and the families of my friends seem to be effective as well. How can one determine the effectiveness of a family? By how successfull they are? How can one measure the value of a person?
What should be the guiding principles? Love? Obedience? Loving obedience? Humor? Empowerment? Subordination? Time outs? Separate cribs or co-sleeping? Breast feeding or bottle? Child-centered or parent-centered? etc.
Some of the guiding principles in parenting are, loving disobedience, humor, and a balance between child centered and parent centered. The child should be able to be obedient with the parent and understand the reasons behind why they have to listen to their parents, but children should also feel comfortable around their parents. In addition, parents must know how to raise the children with a child-centered intention. And as the child grows more responsibilities, they become responsible for centering in on their parents.
What were the best parts of how you were parented (since the worst parts don't really belong in a public class blog)?
I was very close with both my parents when I was younger. Both my parents gave me the freedom to be myself but had necessary limitations and disciplinaries in learning to become a responsible person. In addition, I became close with other parent-like figures in my family, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc. This allowed me to learn from them in addition to learning from my parents.
a
How do you think you'd parent if you're put in that position?
I believe I would parent simialr to how I was parented, mainly because that is mostly what I know when it comes to parenting. In addition, I would try and imagine, as the child, what I would want a parent-like figure to do in a certain situation and fulfill that need for the child (comfort, encouragement, space, advice, etc.)
Diana Baumrind's (1966) Prototypical Descriptions of 3 Parenting Styles
This article breaks down parenting into three types of parents. Authorative, authoritarian, and permissive. The article describes the types of parenting and how the children tend to be as the grow up. The authoritive parent accepts the child still has guidelines for them, "The authoritative parent affirms the child's present qualities, but also sets standards for future conduct." The authoritarian parent tries to shape the child, "She believes in keeping the child in his place, , in restricting his autonomy, and in assigning household responsibilities in order to inculcate respect for work." Finally, the permissive parent gives minimal orders and allows the child to make decisions for themself. "She allows the child to regulate his own activities as much as possible, avoids the exercise of control, and does not encourage him to obey externally defined standards."
The affects these types of parents have of the children are different for each type of parent. For the authoritive parent, the child tends to be more confident and goes against the grain (does not conform to of gender roles), and they tend to be more social. I believe this is true because, the parent allows freedom for who the child is, but still has regulations that make the feel comfortable. The authoritairan parent raises a child that is successfull in school work but has an unhappy disposition contrasting with the child raised by the authorative parent. I think this makes sense because they are raised to listen to the authorative figure and remains insecure when they need to think for themself. Permissive parents, raise rebellious children and antisocial behavior I believe because the parents have so little regulations, it makes the child feel as if they do not care, leading them to being antisocial and rebelling. Based on how I see myself and how I was raised, I think my parents are a balance between authorative and permissive.
What should be the social arrangements? An extended family, nuclear family, a village, corporate day care?
I believe an extended family is beneficial in raising a child so the child has a variety of people to rely on, whereas a nuclear family seems to be very limited and forced. To me it seems that a nuclear family is staged and unrealistic. From my own personal experience and family situations I have heard from friends, most families are not nuclear families. My family I believe is effective in raising me and my brothers and the families of my friends seem to be effective as well. How can one determine the effectiveness of a family? By how successfull they are? How can one measure the value of a person?
What should be the guiding principles? Love? Obedience? Loving obedience? Humor? Empowerment? Subordination? Time outs? Separate cribs or co-sleeping? Breast feeding or bottle? Child-centered or parent-centered? etc.
Some of the guiding principles in parenting are, loving disobedience, humor, and a balance between child centered and parent centered. The child should be able to be obedient with the parent and understand the reasons behind why they have to listen to their parents, but children should also feel comfortable around their parents. In addition, parents must know how to raise the children with a child-centered intention. And as the child grows more responsibilities, they become responsible for centering in on their parents.
What were the best parts of how you were parented (since the worst parts don't really belong in a public class blog)?
I was very close with both my parents when I was younger. Both my parents gave me the freedom to be myself but had necessary limitations and disciplinaries in learning to become a responsible person. In addition, I became close with other parent-like figures in my family, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc. This allowed me to learn from them in addition to learning from my parents.
a
How do you think you'd parent if you're put in that position?
I believe I would parent simialr to how I was parented, mainly because that is mostly what I know when it comes to parenting. In addition, I would try and imagine, as the child, what I would want a parent-like figure to do in a certain situation and fulfill that need for the child (comfort, encouragement, space, advice, etc.)
Diana Baumrind's (1966) Prototypical Descriptions of 3 Parenting Styles
This article breaks down parenting into three types of parents. Authorative, authoritarian, and permissive. The article describes the types of parenting and how the children tend to be as the grow up. The authoritive parent accepts the child still has guidelines for them, "The authoritative parent affirms the child's present qualities, but also sets standards for future conduct." The authoritarian parent tries to shape the child, "She believes in keeping the child in his place, , in restricting his autonomy, and in assigning household responsibilities in order to inculcate respect for work." Finally, the permissive parent gives minimal orders and allows the child to make decisions for themself. "She allows the child to regulate his own activities as much as possible, avoids the exercise of control, and does not encourage him to obey externally defined standards."
The affects these types of parents have of the children are different for each type of parent. For the authoritive parent, the child tends to be more confident and goes against the grain (does not conform to of gender roles), and they tend to be more social. I believe this is true because, the parent allows freedom for who the child is, but still has regulations that make the feel comfortable. The authoritairan parent raises a child that is successfull in school work but has an unhappy disposition contrasting with the child raised by the authorative parent. I think this makes sense because they are raised to listen to the authorative figure and remains insecure when they need to think for themself. Permissive parents, raise rebellious children and antisocial behavior I believe because the parents have so little regulations, it makes the child feel as if they do not care, leading them to being antisocial and rebelling. Based on how I see myself and how I was raised, I think my parents are a balance between authorative and permissive.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
HW 56
What do you think makes a good friendship?
Interview 1:
One must be able to relate and feel comfortable around the person they are friends with. In addition friends should be able to trust one another.
Interview 2:
Common experiences and interests common ideology. Friends should have some similar background so they have something to connect with each other about.
Interview 3:
Three main factors into a good friendship are, trust, loyalty, and being understandable with each other, "its not all about me, its about us" attitude. Leaning more towards the fusion than the autonomy aspects of relationships.
Interview 4:
Mutuality is probably an important factor. There should be a sense that you can be needed by, and you can need your friend- maybe "want" would be more appropriate. But friendship requires trust; that if I am willing to open myself up- if I am willing to leave a crack in my wall for you, that you won't betray me and use that trust to hurt me. And hopefully, in return, you would do the same.
Generally, trust and relatability seem to be the primary reoccuring aspects that strengthen a friendship.
How much do you think proximity affects friendship?
#1:
I see ***** once a week and we're still good friends. As long as you talk to the person constantly, one can still have a good friendship.
#2:
Proximity has a very profound affect on friendship, when you're forced to be around people, you're more likely going to interact with then. Like in school, students share common experiences and will interact with one another, but this can lead to friendships or enemies, it is not always a positive relationship.
#3:
I'm closer with ******(1) (her neighbor) than I am with ******(2) (friend who she used to go to school with and recently moved to Canada). But when ******(2) lived here I was closer with her than ******(1).
#4:
Well I think that it depends on the type of friendship that you have. For friendships that are more based on sharing our stories, as each of us live through them, it would require the friends to be relatively close. Otherwise, there would seem like there are missing chapters. However, if the friendship is based on something like sports, those friends can maintain the same level of friendship, even after months of not seeing the other person.
In addition to proximity, how often you see the person has an affect on the friendship.
Honesty?
#1&2:
If there no honesty, there is no trust, and if there is no trust, there is no friendship. Just like *****, I can't trust him to come to practice, so now we're not friends anymore.
#3:
You want to hear the truth from your friends. If they are not honest with you, are they really your friend?
#4
This ties back to what I said in response to the question about proximity. If people lie to you, it's like they're telling you a story that is not even their own. Honesty is definitely something that is needed, but hardly ever there. Because without it, either sides of the friendship could easily feel betrayed.
Long Distance Relationships?
#1:
They could work. Its possible.
#2:
They need to start in close proximity. Once the bond has strengthened enough, then one can survive a long distance relationship.
#3:
they never work...I guess it depends...I don't think they work.
There seems to be mixed opinions on long distance relationships.
#4
Most of us would hope that it works, but I guess that if it doesn't, then maybe those people weren't true friends, rather they were just a temporary distraction, or temporary stress-reliever.
What do you think is a more significant factor in friendship? Honesty? or Proximity?
#1&2: Honesty
#4: Honesty
Overall, some aspects of friendship tend to be, commonalities, trustworthy-ness, loyalty, friends should be comfortable with each other, friends should have similar backgrounds to connect with each other, proximity, honesty, and how often you see the person. So the ideal friend must be some combination of all of these factors.
Survey Question: What is more important to you in a friend, proximity? or honesty?
Interview 1:
One must be able to relate and feel comfortable around the person they are friends with. In addition friends should be able to trust one another.
Interview 2:
Common experiences and interests common ideology. Friends should have some similar background so they have something to connect with each other about.
Interview 3:
Three main factors into a good friendship are, trust, loyalty, and being understandable with each other, "its not all about me, its about us" attitude. Leaning more towards the fusion than the autonomy aspects of relationships.
Interview 4:
Mutuality is probably an important factor. There should be a sense that you can be needed by, and you can need your friend- maybe "want" would be more appropriate. But friendship requires trust; that if I am willing to open myself up- if I am willing to leave a crack in my wall for you, that you won't betray me and use that trust to hurt me. And hopefully, in return, you would do the same.
Generally, trust and relatability seem to be the primary reoccuring aspects that strengthen a friendship.
How much do you think proximity affects friendship?
#1:
I see ***** once a week and we're still good friends. As long as you talk to the person constantly, one can still have a good friendship.
#2:
Proximity has a very profound affect on friendship, when you're forced to be around people, you're more likely going to interact with then. Like in school, students share common experiences and will interact with one another, but this can lead to friendships or enemies, it is not always a positive relationship.
#3:
I'm closer with ******(1) (her neighbor) than I am with ******(2) (friend who she used to go to school with and recently moved to Canada). But when ******(2) lived here I was closer with her than ******(1).
#4:
Well I think that it depends on the type of friendship that you have. For friendships that are more based on sharing our stories, as each of us live through them, it would require the friends to be relatively close. Otherwise, there would seem like there are missing chapters. However, if the friendship is based on something like sports, those friends can maintain the same level of friendship, even after months of not seeing the other person.
In addition to proximity, how often you see the person has an affect on the friendship.
Honesty?
#1&2:
If there no honesty, there is no trust, and if there is no trust, there is no friendship. Just like *****, I can't trust him to come to practice, so now we're not friends anymore.
#3:
You want to hear the truth from your friends. If they are not honest with you, are they really your friend?
#4
This ties back to what I said in response to the question about proximity. If people lie to you, it's like they're telling you a story that is not even their own. Honesty is definitely something that is needed, but hardly ever there. Because without it, either sides of the friendship could easily feel betrayed.
Long Distance Relationships?
#1:
They could work. Its possible.
#2:
They need to start in close proximity. Once the bond has strengthened enough, then one can survive a long distance relationship.
#3:
they never work...I guess it depends...I don't think they work.
There seems to be mixed opinions on long distance relationships.
#4
Most of us would hope that it works, but I guess that if it doesn't, then maybe those people weren't true friends, rather they were just a temporary distraction, or temporary stress-reliever.
What do you think is a more significant factor in friendship? Honesty? or Proximity?
#1&2: Honesty
#4: Honesty
Overall, some aspects of friendship tend to be, commonalities, trustworthy-ness, loyalty, friends should be comfortable with each other, friends should have similar backgrounds to connect with each other, proximity, honesty, and how often you see the person. So the ideal friend must be some combination of all of these factors.
Survey Question: What is more important to you in a friend, proximity? or honesty?
Monday, May 10, 2010
HW 55- Research Question/Topic
What are the primary factors that strengthen and weaken friendships?
Making And Keeping Friends A Self-Help Guide
According to this website, interests seems to be an important factor to a good friendship. If friends share the same interests, they have more things to connect with each other about. In addition, the article says friend should have a variety of interests and develop interests in different things.
This website also says that one should enjoy spending time alone and should not be so dependent on friends. "Desperation can drive others away" similar to the concepts of fusion vs autonomy we talked about in class. When one tries to fuse with another, they become autonomous. If someone is too dependent on a friend, the friend might feel overwhelmed by their dependency and feel the need to spend time alone.
Another important factor to friendships is to communicate openly, friends must trust each other. "Watch the response you are getting from the person or people you are talking to so you can know if this is the right time to be sharing this information or the right subject for the person." My interpretation of this is that friends should not sensor their emotions but they should know when the right time is to share these emotions.
Are Your Friends Really Friends?
"We all know that friends are important our lives. They keep you company when you are bored and they love you when you are sick or sad. But this isn’t what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that your friends are (other than your parents) the most influential people in your life. You spend hours upon hours with these people and after a while you start to mimic their behavior. Your friends change you."
This seems fairly true to some extent but it is a very bold statement when the author says "your friends are the most influential people in your life" I do agree that friends do have a huge impact on my life in particular but is this true of most people? (possible survey question).
According to this website, honesty is an important factor in a strong friendship, if you feel like you can't be yourself, or if you do not feel comfortable around your friends, they may not be you "true friends."
Some Friends, Indeed, Do More Harm Than Good
"Not all friends have such a salutary effect. Some lie, insult and betray. Some are overly needy. Some give too much advice." These are the primary factors that weaken friendships according to this New York Times article. Similar to the previous article, honesty is a factor in a strong friendship and lies allow for weak friendships. Overly needy being a factor in a bad friendship, similar to the first article, one should not be too dependent on their friends.
Recipe for Good Friendship
"Our relationships to each other are quite similar to our relationships to food. There are friends or families whom we see every day, just as there are food items we eat almost every day, like bread..." This is an interesting analogy, I'm not sure how much I agree with this.
"We tend to assume that friends we see more frequently are better friends, but this is not necessarily the case...I had always known deep down that if I were to depend on them for help in a significant way, they would not come through. On the other hand, I had and still have friends whom I rarely see, but can count on to help me for virtually anything." It seems as though we are friends with people who are easy to be friends with and we end up considering them our close friends. The people we see every day may not be the friends we have the strongest relationships with, but the friendships with these people are easy so we just go through the motions with them. I believe that it is also possible for your closest friend to be someone you see everyday, not because it is easy to be close with them but because you actually feel connected with them because you share similar interests and you feel you can trust them as stated in previous articles. Maybe it is just coincidence that the people we are close to are the people we happen to see every day. Or maybe we just grow accustomed to them because we see them every day. I believe that spending time with the people you are close to does make a friendship stronger but there is also a dependency on the people and how you connect with them.
Making And Keeping Friends A Self-Help Guide
According to this website, interests seems to be an important factor to a good friendship. If friends share the same interests, they have more things to connect with each other about. In addition, the article says friend should have a variety of interests and develop interests in different things.
This website also says that one should enjoy spending time alone and should not be so dependent on friends. "Desperation can drive others away" similar to the concepts of fusion vs autonomy we talked about in class. When one tries to fuse with another, they become autonomous. If someone is too dependent on a friend, the friend might feel overwhelmed by their dependency and feel the need to spend time alone.
Another important factor to friendships is to communicate openly, friends must trust each other. "Watch the response you are getting from the person or people you are talking to so you can know if this is the right time to be sharing this information or the right subject for the person." My interpretation of this is that friends should not sensor their emotions but they should know when the right time is to share these emotions.
Are Your Friends Really Friends?
"We all know that friends are important our lives. They keep you company when you are bored and they love you when you are sick or sad. But this isn’t what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that your friends are (other than your parents) the most influential people in your life. You spend hours upon hours with these people and after a while you start to mimic their behavior. Your friends change you."
This seems fairly true to some extent but it is a very bold statement when the author says "your friends are the most influential people in your life" I do agree that friends do have a huge impact on my life in particular but is this true of most people? (possible survey question).
According to this website, honesty is an important factor in a strong friendship, if you feel like you can't be yourself, or if you do not feel comfortable around your friends, they may not be you "true friends."
Some Friends, Indeed, Do More Harm Than Good
"Not all friends have such a salutary effect. Some lie, insult and betray. Some are overly needy. Some give too much advice." These are the primary factors that weaken friendships according to this New York Times article. Similar to the previous article, honesty is a factor in a strong friendship and lies allow for weak friendships. Overly needy being a factor in a bad friendship, similar to the first article, one should not be too dependent on their friends.
Recipe for Good Friendship
"Our relationships to each other are quite similar to our relationships to food. There are friends or families whom we see every day, just as there are food items we eat almost every day, like bread..." This is an interesting analogy, I'm not sure how much I agree with this.
"We tend to assume that friends we see more frequently are better friends, but this is not necessarily the case...I had always known deep down that if I were to depend on them for help in a significant way, they would not come through. On the other hand, I had and still have friends whom I rarely see, but can count on to help me for virtually anything." It seems as though we are friends with people who are easy to be friends with and we end up considering them our close friends. The people we see every day may not be the friends we have the strongest relationships with, but the friendships with these people are easy so we just go through the motions with them. I believe that it is also possible for your closest friend to be someone you see everyday, not because it is easy to be close with them but because you actually feel connected with them because you share similar interests and you feel you can trust them as stated in previous articles. Maybe it is just coincidence that the people we are close to are the people we happen to see every day. Or maybe we just grow accustomed to them because we see them every day. I believe that spending time with the people you are close to does make a friendship stronger but there is also a dependency on the people and how you connect with them.
HW 54 Jung Test
Jung Test Results
Introverted (I) 53.33% Extroverted (E) 46.67%
Intuitive (N) 60% Sensing (S) 40%
Feeling (F) 52.63% Thinking (T) 47.37%
Perceiving (P) 60% Judging (J) 40%
Your type is: INFP
INFP - "Questor". High capacity for caring. Emotional face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values. 4.4% of total population.
These results are useful because it allows for us to see who we are. As teenagers, we feel these insecurities about who we are, these results give us a definite answer as to our personalities and what type of people we are. It is also useful in the aspect of other people to see how our personalities interact with other people. If we are outgoing or social, we interact better with others, like someone who is Extroverted. Someone Introverted might have more trouble interacting with others. How does this interaction help us in our own lives? Is it better to be introverted or extroverted? Extroverted people seem to be more well liked and well known in society. Introverted people seem more about their own progression. Which is more effective? How do we get to be like this? can someone's personality change?
After taking the test, I feel that the results are pretty accurate. I asked my older brother and my cousin to take the test after I guessed what their results would be based on my own perception of these two people. I guessed fairly correctly and I found that my brother (both of them actually) are very similar to me and we get along pretty well. Contrasting with the results of my cousin who I also get along with. She was the exact opposite of me. In drawing conclusions to "appreciating differences" and "maximizing compatibility," I feel that in this case specifically, I am able to deal with both relationships. But the fact that both relationships are family relationships, there is an obligation to deal with them, I now know how to deal with them. Similar to a theory brought up in class that family affects the type of personality we have.
Introverted (I) 53.33% Extroverted (E) 46.67%
Intuitive (N) 60% Sensing (S) 40%
Feeling (F) 52.63% Thinking (T) 47.37%
Perceiving (P) 60% Judging (J) 40%
Your type is: INFP
INFP - "Questor". High capacity for caring. Emotional face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values. 4.4% of total population.
These results are useful because it allows for us to see who we are. As teenagers, we feel these insecurities about who we are, these results give us a definite answer as to our personalities and what type of people we are. It is also useful in the aspect of other people to see how our personalities interact with other people. If we are outgoing or social, we interact better with others, like someone who is Extroverted. Someone Introverted might have more trouble interacting with others. How does this interaction help us in our own lives? Is it better to be introverted or extroverted? Extroverted people seem to be more well liked and well known in society. Introverted people seem more about their own progression. Which is more effective? How do we get to be like this? can someone's personality change?
After taking the test, I feel that the results are pretty accurate. I asked my older brother and my cousin to take the test after I guessed what their results would be based on my own perception of these two people. I guessed fairly correctly and I found that my brother (both of them actually) are very similar to me and we get along pretty well. Contrasting with the results of my cousin who I also get along with. She was the exact opposite of me. In drawing conclusions to "appreciating differences" and "maximizing compatibility," I feel that in this case specifically, I am able to deal with both relationships. But the fact that both relationships are family relationships, there is an obligation to deal with them, I now know how to deal with them. Similar to a theory brought up in class that family affects the type of personality we have.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Survey Analysis- Hw 53
Taking the survey felt pretty okay, I didn't really have too much trouble answering questions, some of them related to my personal life that I normally wouldn't feel comfortable answering if the survey was not anonymous, so that part of the survey was effective. An interesting question was in the self, politics section, "This culture sees me as a success." I feel like there are several levels of success. There's the success in the family, where your family accepts your accomplishments, then in the school, how well you do as a student, and on the bigger scale, state wide or nation wide. Personally, it made me think of applying to college and the difference in success in high school and success in college. Success in high school could be the equivalent of failure at a highly prestigious college. Which is more accepted in American culture?
Some interesting results I noticed, was that, generally there is a prominant reliance on family and friends. The majority of the people who did the survey seem to be on good terms with their family and have reliable friends they can depend on. For the questions, "You trust your family." the majority answered yes, In addition, the majority said they have at least one friend they tell virtually everything too. This makes me wonder, why do we have such a self reliance on other people? And what are the drawbacks and benefits to these self reliances?
The "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE..." article had different results than the results from the survey. Specifically in the partnering-romance-sexuality section. According to the article, 50% of New York high schoolers have had sexual intercorse whereas in our survey said 32.7% of those who answered have been sexually active. This experience of comparison shows the inaccuracy in the informal quick survey. There are many factors that can affect our research. If not everyone answers the questions, or if people are dishonest in answering the questions. There is a possiblity both surveys are true but our survey only included our school which could also affect the results of the reseach we are looking for. This means we must be specific in our research and keep in mind the factors affecting our results.
Some interesting results I noticed, was that, generally there is a prominant reliance on family and friends. The majority of the people who did the survey seem to be on good terms with their family and have reliable friends they can depend on. For the questions, "You trust your family." the majority answered yes, In addition, the majority said they have at least one friend they tell virtually everything too. This makes me wonder, why do we have such a self reliance on other people? And what are the drawbacks and benefits to these self reliances?
The "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE..." article had different results than the results from the survey. Specifically in the partnering-romance-sexuality section. According to the article, 50% of New York high schoolers have had sexual intercorse whereas in our survey said 32.7% of those who answered have been sexually active. This experience of comparison shows the inaccuracy in the informal quick survey. There are many factors that can affect our research. If not everyone answers the questions, or if people are dishonest in answering the questions. There is a possiblity both surveys are true but our survey only included our school which could also affect the results of the reseach we are looking for. This means we must be specific in our research and keep in mind the factors affecting our results.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Initial Theories of Human Relationships- HW 52
Some initial thoughts I had about human relationships were decency and respect. People expect others to treat the people we don't know nicely to give them a good first impression. And for the people we do know, we are allowed to treat them with disrespect and it is seen as "tough love." But I believe the expectation of treating them with respect is still present. I'm not quite sure what makes more sense, because if it were reversed, where we are rude to the people we don't know we might never get to know them from that point, and if we are nice to the people we know, how did we get to know them initially if at one poit we did not know them? In addition this whole "tough love" thing is sort of saying, 'I'm honest with you because I respect you' at least this is what I've heard. But we are seemingly respectful to the people we don't know when actually, we don't resepct them enough to tell them the truth.
In the script of human relationships, it is often that people expect more from certain people than others. I would expect loyalty from a closer friend than from someone I don't talk to as much. But What determines a close friend from just someone you know? My answer (which I wouldn't say is the best answer) would be someone who I trust to talk a bout personal things and someone I spend a good amount of my time with. This determination may not be mutual between the two. How do you deal with something like this? If I felt close to someone but they do not feel close to me? Going back to expectations, is it fair for me to expect more from someone I consider as a close friend if they don't consider me a close friend? Issues like this in friendships and relationships seem to be taboo, people don't seem very comfortable talking about the script and going with it or against it. It leaves room for awkwardness if there is no balance in the expectations.
In looking at ths scripts of how people live together, I've noticed people believe their household is not normal if it is not like the tv family where they have dinner together and talk about their day. Is that a normal family? Is there such thing as a normal family? What is the significance of family bonds? bonds with friends? associates? How do the values of these relationships differ between situations? When do friends become family? What is the criteria required for someone to be apart of a family?
I also thought about the difference between what people say and what they actually mean. What should you believe? Should you go with what you think is best for them or for you? I guess it depends on the situation. But why are there hidden messages in what people say anyway? It seems like there is a problem with honesty, people don't want to say what they mean for whatever reason. Is it better to hide the truth from someone you care about or be honest with them and let them know the truth as opposed to allowing them to go on thinking the truth is a lie? Personally, I'd rather you tell me the truth. I don't want you to sensor things for me or be the judge of what I should or shouldn't know. If it does hurt me, it is something I would be able to deal with. But I have been guilty of not being completely honest with people. Perhaps we need to have a sense of who wants to hear the truth and who does not. But should we base what we say on what others want to hear or based on what we want to say?
Another question I thought about was, how do we deal with other people's opinions about us or feelings toward us? It seems as though we simply reciprocate other people's feelings toward us. When someone respects us, we respect them back. When someone dislikes us, there is an immediate dislike reciprocated simply because they do not accept them. Why would you approve of someone who does not approve of you? Maybe it has to do with a sense of power, that if they don't like me, they have the power to judge me so I'm going to show them I have that power too by not liking them in return and gossiping about it with the people who do like me and accept me, or at least appear to.
In the script of human relationships, it is often that people expect more from certain people than others. I would expect loyalty from a closer friend than from someone I don't talk to as much. But What determines a close friend from just someone you know? My answer (which I wouldn't say is the best answer) would be someone who I trust to talk a bout personal things and someone I spend a good amount of my time with. This determination may not be mutual between the two. How do you deal with something like this? If I felt close to someone but they do not feel close to me? Going back to expectations, is it fair for me to expect more from someone I consider as a close friend if they don't consider me a close friend? Issues like this in friendships and relationships seem to be taboo, people don't seem very comfortable talking about the script and going with it or against it. It leaves room for awkwardness if there is no balance in the expectations.
In looking at ths scripts of how people live together, I've noticed people believe their household is not normal if it is not like the tv family where they have dinner together and talk about their day. Is that a normal family? Is there such thing as a normal family? What is the significance of family bonds? bonds with friends? associates? How do the values of these relationships differ between situations? When do friends become family? What is the criteria required for someone to be apart of a family?
I also thought about the difference between what people say and what they actually mean. What should you believe? Should you go with what you think is best for them or for you? I guess it depends on the situation. But why are there hidden messages in what people say anyway? It seems like there is a problem with honesty, people don't want to say what they mean for whatever reason. Is it better to hide the truth from someone you care about or be honest with them and let them know the truth as opposed to allowing them to go on thinking the truth is a lie? Personally, I'd rather you tell me the truth. I don't want you to sensor things for me or be the judge of what I should or shouldn't know. If it does hurt me, it is something I would be able to deal with. But I have been guilty of not being completely honest with people. Perhaps we need to have a sense of who wants to hear the truth and who does not. But should we base what we say on what others want to hear or based on what we want to say?
Another question I thought about was, how do we deal with other people's opinions about us or feelings toward us? It seems as though we simply reciprocate other people's feelings toward us. When someone respects us, we respect them back. When someone dislikes us, there is an immediate dislike reciprocated simply because they do not accept them. Why would you approve of someone who does not approve of you? Maybe it has to do with a sense of power, that if they don't like me, they have the power to judge me so I'm going to show them I have that power too by not liking them in return and gossiping about it with the people who do like me and accept me, or at least appear to.
Monday, April 26, 2010
HW 51
School as domination - How do schools train us to be sheep, to be dull, to be dumb, to be absurd? Is it possible/preferable to escape, to transform, or to understand the institution? (Dead Poets Society, Freire, Sizer, Delpit, interviews, own thoughts)
Schools train us to be obedient by creating formalized and restricted institutions and it is possible to understand and transform the institution but rare to successfully escape it.
GATTO
Gatto discussed the main steps of school: school is a sorting machine, the students must be obedient, the teacher chooses the curriculum for the students, the student is only as good as the teacher determines they are, and the student is under constant surveillance. Basically, the six lessons are trying to form and mold the students to be students that are easy to teach and easy to sort into the appropriate places in society. If the student is cooperative in the classroom and treats the teacher as the authority figure who thinks for everyone, they can be easily sorted. Basically, the teacher has all the power in the classroom and the students are just there to absorb what is being taught without any individual thought or contribution. Gatto explains institutions train us to be sheep through these six steps.
Gatto does not agree with these steps, "This curriculum produces moral and intellectual paralysis" the steps do not allow for the teachers to actually learn anything but to accept the authoritive figure and be obedient. "Institutional schoolteachers are destructive to children's development. Nobody survives the Six-Lesson Curriculum unscathed, not even the instructors. The method is deeply and profoundly anti-educational" The steps create an inauthentic environment that is not natural for teacher or students. According to Gatto, it is possible to transform the institution into a more realistic learning environment where students do not all act in the same obedient manor and the teachers do not always act as the all knowing savior.
DELPIT:
Delpit discusses that traditional way of learning (the steps) are necessary but there should be opportunities for students to be aware of how they are learning and what they are learning. This can be seen as a transformation of the institution training us to be dull and dumb, "I suggest that students must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of American life, not by being forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors; that they must be allowed the resource of the teacher’s expert knowledge, while being helped to acknowledge their own ‘expertness’ as well" students should take what the teachers teach as information to not just memorize and spit back out but to think about it for themselves as an alternative to being trained as a sheep.
MS. D
She says he had a good experience at her Brown, there were no core curriculums and it was a self motivated school. She specifically wanted to teach at a public school that was anti regents test prep. Ms. D discussed how difficult it was for her to find a school where her main focus in teaching was not preparing the students for the standardized tests. She purely cared about teaching students what she wanted to teach based on her own interests and allow for students to think and write independently based on their own opinions.
MR. MANLEY
When asked why Mr. Manley decided to become a teacher, he explained that teaching is a real humanistic job where you can really connect with people. He specifically wanted to shy away from the traditional way of teaching where the student teacher connection is minimal. He compared his experience teaching at SOF to a previous school he taught at where the teachers were not allowed to connect with the students at all. He had to teach grammar for a whole semester whereas at SOF he chose what to teach the students and he was able to have close relationships with the students. But a negative aspect of SOF that he mentioned was that students were more motivated to hand in homework at the previous school he taught at. The teacher is the authoritive figure in the institution training the students to be obedient and easy to sort especially in a traditional styled teaching environment. The progressive style, where the students are less obedient as witnessed by Manley, portrays a slight transformation and understanding that students have of the institution training them to be like a sheep as there seems to be more freedom in how to teach and how to learn.
Book: The End of Education by Neil Postman
Postman discusses the role of the authority and the "sin" of the student being too dependent on the authority figure. "The sin is in our unwillingness to examine our own beliefs and in believing that our authorities cannot be wrong"(128). It seems that often times in schooling (at least from my own experience), students expect the teachers to spoon feed the information to us, it is their job to give us all the information as the authority figures, “Knowledge is presented as a commodity to be acquired, never as a human struggle to understand, to overcome falsity, to stumble toward the truth."(116). It is the student's responsibility to take what the teacher says and think about it for themselves instead of relying on the teacher to spell out the answers to everything. The student must prove they are thinking about the material. Students must think for themselves and make their own decisions but take the authority figures' information into consideration. Students being able to think for themselves is a transformation to students being trained to be dumb, dull,
According to Ted Sizer, The students and teachers should have the freedom to do what they need to fit their roles, and the curriculum should be able to fit for the teacher and the student. The set up seems to be planned out there's no room for uncertainties, "How do I teach toward deep understanding-the application of knowledge to an unfamiliar situation- when the syllabus allows no time for plumbing the unfamiliar?" What I found interesting was that he also says the students and teachers should "Get the incentives right," that the teachers and students should want to be in school for the right reason. Essentially, according to Sizer, the main reason student's learn and go to school, is to learn to think and ask questions, a slight alternative to the institutions training the students to be sheep. Although the students may be thinking and questioning based on Sizer's views on education, there is still a sense of control from the teacher to get the students easier to sort.
Hirsch's Article
Sizer has an imminent view on how schools should be, Hirsch has a transcendent view. Hirsch believes school curriculums should be aimed towards what the students will face in their lives such as literature (newspapers and books) and standardized tests (SATs), "Students who possess this knowledge are prepared to participate in civic life, move up career ladders, succeed in college, converse confidently with a wide variety of Americans with whom they work or socialize, and generally have the esteem that comes with being regarded as an educated person." Basically that in order to fit in with the American culture as an adult, there are things that one must be educated about, and they are educated about this in school with the curriculum provided. This goes along with the traditional way of teaching which allows students to be trained as sheep so they can be sorted into the real world as appropriate titles.
Intellectually, Sizer and Hirsch just have different ideas on what students should know. Sizer has a view which allows students to be on different levels of knowledge as long as there is progression in their development of thinking skills whereas Hirsch's view of a student's intellect should be based on the expectations of society. I believe that generally, in both views, the emotional state of the student would be similar, regardless of the curriculum there is still pressure from parents, peers, and society that should be accounted for. Hirsch's view of school seems to be more practical than Sizer's because Hirsch's goes along with society's view whereas Sizer's is a little more independent to that. Expectations of fitting the American culture are a norm that is difficult to avoid thus, Sizer's theory less practical. I think it would be very difficult for the two theories to be adapted to work together because they have different goals. Hirsch's goal is to get to the next level whereas Sizer's goal is to learn and improve. Hirsch's views on education allow for students to be trained whereas Sizer's views do not allow as much for students to be trained.
Obama's School Speech:
Obama talks about how no matter what you want to do in life, it requires an education "And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers." Students are expected by society to go to school and get a good education, it is a general expectation for students to be obedient and thus successful. It is frowned upon when students drop out of school, they are looked at as delinquents who do not follow the rules and are associated with failure, "You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it" but if in school students are only learning how to regurgitate information, does that successfully apply to going out into the real world and the work force?
Institutions:
This website talks about the benefits of institutions..."Institutions provide procedures through which human conduct is patterned, compelled to go, in grooves deemed desirable by society. And this trick is performed by making these grooves appear to the individual as the only possible ones." Basically that institutions allow for everyone to think the same way so that everyone has common knowledge. It seems to me a form of manipulation for people to understand each other and cooperate to keep society running through institutions. Institutions allow for students to be like a sheep and blend into society.
INTERVIEW
The female sophomore said "it is what it is" about the application process and it made me think about schools as a sorting machine. How we have to adapt to what society asks of us to be considered successful if that means going through a rigorous application process for the risk of denial or the relief of approval. Even though she does not agree with test taking she believes it is necessary. Her perspective seems to be that this is how society is and there is nothing we can do about it, we adapt to the level of work we think is suitable for ourselves. But what if expectations get so high that even the moderate levels are frowned upon? Should we push ourselves to risk stress and money? Or accept that we are not accepted? This point of view seems to be the dominant perspective of students about school, "It is what it is" and there's not much we can do about it, this is what the institutions train us to think so students do not question the authority and become harder to mold and sort into society. Going against the institutions and society is a way to escape the absurdity of students being trained as sheep.
Relating the concept of obedience and students being trained as sheep to the film, Dead Poets Society, The main characters go to a very traditional styled school where all their classes follow generally the same format. This entails reading out of the textbook; listening to the teacher lecture and having them determine the student's intelligence. But there is one teacher that teaches different from the rest. He teaches the students to think freely and hold their own opinions and ideas. I believe this is a fairly successful way of escaping obedience in students. The students in the film were able to live their life on their own standards.
An important aspect of education is the student's input and motivation to learn out of their own personal interest. "Nietzsche’s famous aphorism is relevant here: 'He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how.' This applies as much to learning as to living"(Postman 4). If the student has a good reason for them to educate themselves, they will deal with many possible ways of doing so. If the student is motivated enough, they have the potential to learn in almost any situation. Additionally, the motivation should be for the right reason, relating to Manley's comparison between traditional and progressive learning environments, the traditional environment entailed motivation to get the work done, but is simply getting the work done allowing for the student to learn?
Schools train us to be obedient by creating formalized and restricted institutions and it is possible to understand and transform the institution but rare to successfully escape it.
GATTO
Gatto discussed the main steps of school: school is a sorting machine, the students must be obedient, the teacher chooses the curriculum for the students, the student is only as good as the teacher determines they are, and the student is under constant surveillance. Basically, the six lessons are trying to form and mold the students to be students that are easy to teach and easy to sort into the appropriate places in society. If the student is cooperative in the classroom and treats the teacher as the authority figure who thinks for everyone, they can be easily sorted. Basically, the teacher has all the power in the classroom and the students are just there to absorb what is being taught without any individual thought or contribution. Gatto explains institutions train us to be sheep through these six steps.
Gatto does not agree with these steps, "This curriculum produces moral and intellectual paralysis" the steps do not allow for the teachers to actually learn anything but to accept the authoritive figure and be obedient. "Institutional schoolteachers are destructive to children's development. Nobody survives the Six-Lesson Curriculum unscathed, not even the instructors. The method is deeply and profoundly anti-educational" The steps create an inauthentic environment that is not natural for teacher or students. According to Gatto, it is possible to transform the institution into a more realistic learning environment where students do not all act in the same obedient manor and the teachers do not always act as the all knowing savior.
DELPIT:
Delpit discusses that traditional way of learning (the steps) are necessary but there should be opportunities for students to be aware of how they are learning and what they are learning. This can be seen as a transformation of the institution training us to be dull and dumb, "I suggest that students must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of American life, not by being forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors; that they must be allowed the resource of the teacher’s expert knowledge, while being helped to acknowledge their own ‘expertness’ as well" students should take what the teachers teach as information to not just memorize and spit back out but to think about it for themselves as an alternative to being trained as a sheep.
MS. D
She says he had a good experience at her Brown, there were no core curriculums and it was a self motivated school. She specifically wanted to teach at a public school that was anti regents test prep. Ms. D discussed how difficult it was for her to find a school where her main focus in teaching was not preparing the students for the standardized tests. She purely cared about teaching students what she wanted to teach based on her own interests and allow for students to think and write independently based on their own opinions.
MR. MANLEY
When asked why Mr. Manley decided to become a teacher, he explained that teaching is a real humanistic job where you can really connect with people. He specifically wanted to shy away from the traditional way of teaching where the student teacher connection is minimal. He compared his experience teaching at SOF to a previous school he taught at where the teachers were not allowed to connect with the students at all. He had to teach grammar for a whole semester whereas at SOF he chose what to teach the students and he was able to have close relationships with the students. But a negative aspect of SOF that he mentioned was that students were more motivated to hand in homework at the previous school he taught at. The teacher is the authoritive figure in the institution training the students to be obedient and easy to sort especially in a traditional styled teaching environment. The progressive style, where the students are less obedient as witnessed by Manley, portrays a slight transformation and understanding that students have of the institution training them to be like a sheep as there seems to be more freedom in how to teach and how to learn.
Book: The End of Education by Neil Postman
Postman discusses the role of the authority and the "sin" of the student being too dependent on the authority figure. "The sin is in our unwillingness to examine our own beliefs and in believing that our authorities cannot be wrong"(128). It seems that often times in schooling (at least from my own experience), students expect the teachers to spoon feed the information to us, it is their job to give us all the information as the authority figures, “Knowledge is presented as a commodity to be acquired, never as a human struggle to understand, to overcome falsity, to stumble toward the truth."(116). It is the student's responsibility to take what the teacher says and think about it for themselves instead of relying on the teacher to spell out the answers to everything. The student must prove they are thinking about the material. Students must think for themselves and make their own decisions but take the authority figures' information into consideration. Students being able to think for themselves is a transformation to students being trained to be dumb, dull,
According to Ted Sizer, The students and teachers should have the freedom to do what they need to fit their roles, and the curriculum should be able to fit for the teacher and the student. The set up seems to be planned out there's no room for uncertainties, "How do I teach toward deep understanding-the application of knowledge to an unfamiliar situation- when the syllabus allows no time for plumbing the unfamiliar?" What I found interesting was that he also says the students and teachers should "Get the incentives right," that the teachers and students should want to be in school for the right reason. Essentially, according to Sizer, the main reason student's learn and go to school, is to learn to think and ask questions, a slight alternative to the institutions training the students to be sheep. Although the students may be thinking and questioning based on Sizer's views on education, there is still a sense of control from the teacher to get the students easier to sort.
Hirsch's Article
Sizer has an imminent view on how schools should be, Hirsch has a transcendent view. Hirsch believes school curriculums should be aimed towards what the students will face in their lives such as literature (newspapers and books) and standardized tests (SATs), "Students who possess this knowledge are prepared to participate in civic life, move up career ladders, succeed in college, converse confidently with a wide variety of Americans with whom they work or socialize, and generally have the esteem that comes with being regarded as an educated person." Basically that in order to fit in with the American culture as an adult, there are things that one must be educated about, and they are educated about this in school with the curriculum provided. This goes along with the traditional way of teaching which allows students to be trained as sheep so they can be sorted into the real world as appropriate titles.
Intellectually, Sizer and Hirsch just have different ideas on what students should know. Sizer has a view which allows students to be on different levels of knowledge as long as there is progression in their development of thinking skills whereas Hirsch's view of a student's intellect should be based on the expectations of society. I believe that generally, in both views, the emotional state of the student would be similar, regardless of the curriculum there is still pressure from parents, peers, and society that should be accounted for. Hirsch's view of school seems to be more practical than Sizer's because Hirsch's goes along with society's view whereas Sizer's is a little more independent to that. Expectations of fitting the American culture are a norm that is difficult to avoid thus, Sizer's theory less practical. I think it would be very difficult for the two theories to be adapted to work together because they have different goals. Hirsch's goal is to get to the next level whereas Sizer's goal is to learn and improve. Hirsch's views on education allow for students to be trained whereas Sizer's views do not allow as much for students to be trained.
Obama's School Speech:
Obama talks about how no matter what you want to do in life, it requires an education "And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers." Students are expected by society to go to school and get a good education, it is a general expectation for students to be obedient and thus successful. It is frowned upon when students drop out of school, they are looked at as delinquents who do not follow the rules and are associated with failure, "You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it" but if in school students are only learning how to regurgitate information, does that successfully apply to going out into the real world and the work force?
Institutions:
This website talks about the benefits of institutions..."Institutions provide procedures through which human conduct is patterned, compelled to go, in grooves deemed desirable by society. And this trick is performed by making these grooves appear to the individual as the only possible ones." Basically that institutions allow for everyone to think the same way so that everyone has common knowledge. It seems to me a form of manipulation for people to understand each other and cooperate to keep society running through institutions. Institutions allow for students to be like a sheep and blend into society.
INTERVIEW
The female sophomore said "it is what it is" about the application process and it made me think about schools as a sorting machine. How we have to adapt to what society asks of us to be considered successful if that means going through a rigorous application process for the risk of denial or the relief of approval. Even though she does not agree with test taking she believes it is necessary. Her perspective seems to be that this is how society is and there is nothing we can do about it, we adapt to the level of work we think is suitable for ourselves. But what if expectations get so high that even the moderate levels are frowned upon? Should we push ourselves to risk stress and money? Or accept that we are not accepted? This point of view seems to be the dominant perspective of students about school, "It is what it is" and there's not much we can do about it, this is what the institutions train us to think so students do not question the authority and become harder to mold and sort into society. Going against the institutions and society is a way to escape the absurdity of students being trained as sheep.
Relating the concept of obedience and students being trained as sheep to the film, Dead Poets Society, The main characters go to a very traditional styled school where all their classes follow generally the same format. This entails reading out of the textbook; listening to the teacher lecture and having them determine the student's intelligence. But there is one teacher that teaches different from the rest. He teaches the students to think freely and hold their own opinions and ideas. I believe this is a fairly successful way of escaping obedience in students. The students in the film were able to live their life on their own standards.
An important aspect of education is the student's input and motivation to learn out of their own personal interest. "Nietzsche’s famous aphorism is relevant here: 'He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how.' This applies as much to learning as to living"(Postman 4). If the student has a good reason for them to educate themselves, they will deal with many possible ways of doing so. If the student is motivated enough, they have the potential to learn in almost any situation. Additionally, the motivation should be for the right reason, relating to Manley's comparison between traditional and progressive learning environments, the traditional environment entailed motivation to get the work done, but is simply getting the work done allowing for the student to learn?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
HW 49- Savior/Teacher Film
My personal contribution to the film was pretty small, I was just another student. My interpretation of the overall message in our class film was that, what they teach you in school is not directly relevant to the every day life of high school students in particular. We are so tied down to our high school routine and roles of the smart students, the chatty girls, or the rebels, it becomes our main focus in school and the curicculum is irrelevant to the students and in this case, the teacher as well.
I think this film emphasizes in contrast how schools are very mechanic and everything has to be done a certain way. They are robotic in the schedules and curriculums, social/human problems are not allowed get in the way of academic growth. Students and teachers are expected to keep their personal problems outside of the classroom. Whereas in this film, the teacher's actions relfect on his personal problems and he seems to be taking out his anger on the students.
Contrasting with the films we watched in class, all of them have the teacher being some sort of inspiration to the students. The students all grow to respect the new teacher as they come in for their first time teaching (Dangerous Minds). Which realistically, newer teachers are not as respected as the teachers who have been teaching for a couple years (at least from my own experience). Which is like in the class video, the students do not take him seriously. Even when he lashes out at them, once he leaves, all the students go back to their business. Contrasting with the films we watched in class, the students are changed by the teacher (Freedom Writers).
I think possibly because school is treated as a place students dread because of the mechanic and robotic routine of school, students fall into the traps of high school drama and conflicts which require a savior such as a teacher who is at the scene of the crime. Students feel that they have their lives planned out for them so there is this need to step out of bounds to be original, do your own thing, or to just want something that might not fit into the schedule or the routine (like Neil from Dead Poet's Society) but this going against the grain causes problems where the student needs somewhere to go to vent out these problems so they go to a teacher who is sort of the by stander in the situation who can give a valid input.
I think this film emphasizes in contrast how schools are very mechanic and everything has to be done a certain way. They are robotic in the schedules and curriculums, social/human problems are not allowed get in the way of academic growth. Students and teachers are expected to keep their personal problems outside of the classroom. Whereas in this film, the teacher's actions relfect on his personal problems and he seems to be taking out his anger on the students.
Contrasting with the films we watched in class, all of them have the teacher being some sort of inspiration to the students. The students all grow to respect the new teacher as they come in for their first time teaching (Dangerous Minds). Which realistically, newer teachers are not as respected as the teachers who have been teaching for a couple years (at least from my own experience). Which is like in the class video, the students do not take him seriously. Even when he lashes out at them, once he leaves, all the students go back to their business. Contrasting with the films we watched in class, the students are changed by the teacher (Freedom Writers).
I think possibly because school is treated as a place students dread because of the mechanic and robotic routine of school, students fall into the traps of high school drama and conflicts which require a savior such as a teacher who is at the scene of the crime. Students feel that they have their lives planned out for them so there is this need to step out of bounds to be original, do your own thing, or to just want something that might not fit into the schedule or the routine (like Neil from Dead Poet's Society) but this going against the grain causes problems where the student needs somewhere to go to vent out these problems so they go to a teacher who is sort of the by stander in the situation who can give a valid input.
Monday, April 19, 2010
HW 50
GATTO
Gatto discussed the main steps of school: school is a sorting machine, the students must be obdeient, the teacher chooses the curriculum for the students, the student is only as good as the teacher detrmines they are, and the student is under constant surveilance. Basically, the six lessons are trying to form and mold the students to be students that are easy to teach and easy to sort into the appropriate places in society. If the student is cooperative in the classroom and treats the teacher as the authority figure who thinks for everyone, they can be easily sorted. Basically, the teacher has all the power in the classroom and the students are just there to absorb what is being taught without any individual thought or contribution.
Gatto does not agree with these steps, "This curriculum produces moral and intellectual paralysis" the steps do not allow for the teachers to actually learn anything but to accept the authoritive figure and be obedient. "Institutional schoolteachers are destructive to children's development. Nobody survives the Six-Lesson Curriculum unscathed, not even the instructors. The method is deeply and profoundly anti-educational" The steps create an inauthentic environment that is not natural for teacher or students.
FREIRE
Freire talks about the banking concept of education where learning is similar to a commodity, the teacher offers the information and the student takes it, "the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat." The student only regurgitates the information provided by the teacher rather than thinking about it, "the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits."
DELPIT:
Delpit believes that test taking does not accurately determine the intellegence of a student, "If teachers make judgments only according to the tests being inflicted on the children by the schools, then they can misunderstand their children's brilliance... these children carry a brilliance that you have little access to. You have to figure out how to bring that brilliance out." The main focus in looking at the brilliance of a student is looking at their strengths and weaknesses as a learner.
Delpit discusses that traditional way of learning (the steps) are necessary but there should be opportunities for students to be aware of how they are learning and what they are learning."I suggest that students must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of American life, not by being forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors; that they must be allowed the resource of the teacher’s expert knowledge, while being helped to acknowledge their own ‘expertness’ as well" students should take what the teachers teach as information to not just memorize and spit back out but to think about it for themselves.
MS. D
She says he had a good experience at her Brown, there were no core curriculums and it was a self motivated school. She specifically wanted to teach at a public school that was anti regents test prep. Ms. D discussed how difficult it was for her to find a school where her main focus in teaching was not preparing the students for the standardized tests. She went by the phrase "breath no depth" and she had researched Ted Sizer were she had found a very specific interest in his way of teaching. She seems to be very pleased with her job at school of the future, she loves the exhibitions that we do, the freedom in the curriculum, and that the teachers are able to get to know the students.
MR. MANLEY
When asked why Mr. Manley decided to beome a teacer, he explained that teaching is a real humanistic job where you can really connect with people. He compared his experience teaching at SOF to a previous school he taught at where the teachers were not allowed to connect with the students at all. He had to teach grammar for a whole semester whereas at SOF he chose what to teach the students and he was able to have close realtionships with the students. But a negative aspect of SOF that he mentioned was that students were more motivated to hand in homeowork at the previous school he taught at.
Manley also discussed the difference between a progressive groovy style of teaching and traditional style of teaching. This lead into his experiences teaching with these two different styles of teaching. Relating to the issue of motivation, at the more traditional school, the students wwere more obdeient and did the work to get the grade whereas at SOF as a progressive style, the environment is more laidback I think especially at SOF because the majority of the students are so comfortable in the school, being there through middle school in addition to having close relationships with the teachers, students are less motivated to do the work. Manley also compares how in the traditional way of teaching, the students just get the work done where in a more progressive style, the students think about why and they have their own opinion on what they are learning.
Gatto discussed the main steps of school: school is a sorting machine, the students must be obdeient, the teacher chooses the curriculum for the students, the student is only as good as the teacher detrmines they are, and the student is under constant surveilance. Basically, the six lessons are trying to form and mold the students to be students that are easy to teach and easy to sort into the appropriate places in society. If the student is cooperative in the classroom and treats the teacher as the authority figure who thinks for everyone, they can be easily sorted. Basically, the teacher has all the power in the classroom and the students are just there to absorb what is being taught without any individual thought or contribution.
Gatto does not agree with these steps, "This curriculum produces moral and intellectual paralysis" the steps do not allow for the teachers to actually learn anything but to accept the authoritive figure and be obedient. "Institutional schoolteachers are destructive to children's development. Nobody survives the Six-Lesson Curriculum unscathed, not even the instructors. The method is deeply and profoundly anti-educational" The steps create an inauthentic environment that is not natural for teacher or students.
FREIRE
Freire talks about the banking concept of education where learning is similar to a commodity, the teacher offers the information and the student takes it, "the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat." The student only regurgitates the information provided by the teacher rather than thinking about it, "the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits."
DELPIT:
Delpit believes that test taking does not accurately determine the intellegence of a student, "If teachers make judgments only according to the tests being inflicted on the children by the schools, then they can misunderstand their children's brilliance... these children carry a brilliance that you have little access to. You have to figure out how to bring that brilliance out." The main focus in looking at the brilliance of a student is looking at their strengths and weaknesses as a learner.
Delpit discusses that traditional way of learning (the steps) are necessary but there should be opportunities for students to be aware of how they are learning and what they are learning."I suggest that students must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of American life, not by being forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors; that they must be allowed the resource of the teacher’s expert knowledge, while being helped to acknowledge their own ‘expertness’ as well" students should take what the teachers teach as information to not just memorize and spit back out but to think about it for themselves.
MS. D
She says he had a good experience at her Brown, there were no core curriculums and it was a self motivated school. She specifically wanted to teach at a public school that was anti regents test prep. Ms. D discussed how difficult it was for her to find a school where her main focus in teaching was not preparing the students for the standardized tests. She went by the phrase "breath no depth" and she had researched Ted Sizer were she had found a very specific interest in his way of teaching. She seems to be very pleased with her job at school of the future, she loves the exhibitions that we do, the freedom in the curriculum, and that the teachers are able to get to know the students.
MR. MANLEY
When asked why Mr. Manley decided to beome a teacer, he explained that teaching is a real humanistic job where you can really connect with people. He compared his experience teaching at SOF to a previous school he taught at where the teachers were not allowed to connect with the students at all. He had to teach grammar for a whole semester whereas at SOF he chose what to teach the students and he was able to have close realtionships with the students. But a negative aspect of SOF that he mentioned was that students were more motivated to hand in homeowork at the previous school he taught at.
Manley also discussed the difference between a progressive groovy style of teaching and traditional style of teaching. This lead into his experiences teaching with these two different styles of teaching. Relating to the issue of motivation, at the more traditional school, the students wwere more obdeient and did the work to get the grade whereas at SOF as a progressive style, the environment is more laidback I think especially at SOF because the majority of the students are so comfortable in the school, being there through middle school in addition to having close relationships with the teachers, students are less motivated to do the work. Manley also compares how in the traditional way of teaching, the students just get the work done where in a more progressive style, the students think about why and they have their own opinion on what they are learning.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Treatment for Savior/Teacher Move- HW 48
The film begins from the perspective of select 2 students from a humanities class and the perspective of the teacher. The first perspective is from the teacher, Benjamin Brooks, he walks into the school building anxious and prepared. Next is the nerdy girl, Anna Robertson she walks into the school building, shoulders slumped and avoiding eye contact with anyone and a book in hand. The next perspective is the popular cool guy, Jimmy Kendall he walks in with his head held high and his ipod blasting an edgy but popular song.
These two students go to their seperate advisories, Anna is sitting in the science lab studying. Jimmy is in the next room talking to his friends and being told to be quiet by Mr. Morrison, the health teacher just as it was time to go to first period. All while Mr. Brooks is preparing for the humanities lesson today.
Anna and Jimmy check their schedules and find their way to their humanities class. Once they arrive, Mr. Brooks is writing a question on the board and all the students form several clusters, Jimmy and Anna go to their seperate clusters of friends who happen to have the same class. Most of the kids are mumbling and snickering at the new teacher, wondering what he is going to be like. Mr. Brooks finishes writing the question and the students immediately are put off by the question and do not want to answer it, "What would you do if you only had one day to live?"
Most of the student's immediate responses are, "How am I supposed to answer that?" or "Nah, I've got time, I don't need to worry about it" and the funny guy says "I gotta live for more than one day, I've got a date on Friday" the class responds, "ayeeee" and there is a circle of high fives with the cool kids. Jimmy, as one of the cool kids, chimes in with the rest of that cluster. While the rest of the class quietly laughs to themselves and wait for the teacher to start the class.
Mr. Brooks is kind of nervous so now there's an awkward silence while he gets his thoughts together as the students look around questioningly, wondering if the teacher knows what he is doing. He says "Oh right...this is where I'm supposed to teach..." another awkward silence. "I'm Mr. Brooks and I will be your humanities teacher for the next semester, now let's go around and everyone say your name and something about yourself." Everyone says their name and something like, their hobbies, or favorite foods, etc, but the protagonists say things about themselves pertaining to the question Mr. Brooks wrote on the board eariler. This catches Mr. Brook's attention and class ends just as Mr. Brooks wants to discuss what the two students said. All the students make their way out of class and disperse to their next class.
The next day starts off similar to the previous but Anna, Jimmy and Mr. Brooks enter the school angrily. As soon as it is time for first period, the three main characters are in the same room. Mr. Brooks looked at his lesson plan just as all the students sat down and decides to go on a walking trip to the park. The class has mixed reactions, Anna and Jimmy particularly are satisfied with the park trip. The three main characters are trying to get their mind off of what was bothering them. The class gets to the park and Mr. Brooks has the class do an activity that the majority of the class enjoys.
The class, now more comfortable with each other while merging clusters, Mr. Brooks has everyone sit in a circle on the grass and he asks that everyone goes around and says the first thing that comes to mind, anything. Then he asks that everyone think about the one thing they want at that very moment. Mr. Brooks then asks everyone to go around and say at least one thing that is preventing them from getting what they want. The class opens up, mainly focusing in Anna and Jimmy. Mr. Brooks becomes the savior/teacher who shows the students how to express themselves.
These two students go to their seperate advisories, Anna is sitting in the science lab studying. Jimmy is in the next room talking to his friends and being told to be quiet by Mr. Morrison, the health teacher just as it was time to go to first period. All while Mr. Brooks is preparing for the humanities lesson today.
Anna and Jimmy check their schedules and find their way to their humanities class. Once they arrive, Mr. Brooks is writing a question on the board and all the students form several clusters, Jimmy and Anna go to their seperate clusters of friends who happen to have the same class. Most of the kids are mumbling and snickering at the new teacher, wondering what he is going to be like. Mr. Brooks finishes writing the question and the students immediately are put off by the question and do not want to answer it, "What would you do if you only had one day to live?"
Most of the student's immediate responses are, "How am I supposed to answer that?" or "Nah, I've got time, I don't need to worry about it" and the funny guy says "I gotta live for more than one day, I've got a date on Friday" the class responds, "ayeeee" and there is a circle of high fives with the cool kids. Jimmy, as one of the cool kids, chimes in with the rest of that cluster. While the rest of the class quietly laughs to themselves and wait for the teacher to start the class.
Mr. Brooks is kind of nervous so now there's an awkward silence while he gets his thoughts together as the students look around questioningly, wondering if the teacher knows what he is doing. He says "Oh right...this is where I'm supposed to teach..." another awkward silence. "I'm Mr. Brooks and I will be your humanities teacher for the next semester, now let's go around and everyone say your name and something about yourself." Everyone says their name and something like, their hobbies, or favorite foods, etc, but the protagonists say things about themselves pertaining to the question Mr. Brooks wrote on the board eariler. This catches Mr. Brook's attention and class ends just as Mr. Brooks wants to discuss what the two students said. All the students make their way out of class and disperse to their next class.
The next day starts off similar to the previous but Anna, Jimmy and Mr. Brooks enter the school angrily. As soon as it is time for first period, the three main characters are in the same room. Mr. Brooks looked at his lesson plan just as all the students sat down and decides to go on a walking trip to the park. The class has mixed reactions, Anna and Jimmy particularly are satisfied with the park trip. The three main characters are trying to get their mind off of what was bothering them. The class gets to the park and Mr. Brooks has the class do an activity that the majority of the class enjoys.
The class, now more comfortable with each other while merging clusters, Mr. Brooks has everyone sit in a circle on the grass and he asks that everyone goes around and says the first thing that comes to mind, anything. Then he asks that everyone think about the one thing they want at that very moment. Mr. Brooks then asks everyone to go around and say at least one thing that is preventing them from getting what they want. The class opens up, mainly focusing in Anna and Jimmy. Mr. Brooks becomes the savior/teacher who shows the students how to express themselves.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Class Film Preparation 1- Hw 47
-The students should have the "lovable" tone in their community similar to Dangerous Minds, it would make it realistic in relation to SOF.
-Students are unmotivated due to self consciousness similar to Dead Poet's Society this can be realistic in certain cases, maybe not for everyone and this can be shown in the film.
-Students are unmotivated because they do not believe school holds any significance in their life, there are more important things, also very realistic.
-Teacher uses analogies that relate specifically to the student's lives.
-Teacher has a quirky personality that the students at first find annoying but come to relate to.
-The trope of the dramatic change of how the students feel about the teacher from disapproval to approval.
- Along with the trope of change in student's attitude towards the teacher, should be a change in setting/tone to emphasize this change.
-Students are unmotivated due to self consciousness similar to Dead Poet's Society this can be realistic in certain cases, maybe not for everyone and this can be shown in the film.
-Students are unmotivated because they do not believe school holds any significance in their life, there are more important things, also very realistic.
-Teacher uses analogies that relate specifically to the student's lives.
-Teacher has a quirky personality that the students at first find annoying but come to relate to.
-The trope of the dramatic change of how the students feel about the teacher from disapproval to approval.
- Along with the trope of change in student's attitude towards the teacher, should be a change in setting/tone to emphasize this change.
Research and Writing- HW 46
Book: The End of Education by Neil Postman
Topic: College
The End of Education by Neil Postman is about the critique of American education and possible alternatives to education in the United States. Postman talks about some of the major aspects of education including, authority, media and views of knowledge and education, and why and how students can be motivated to go to school and learn.
This relates to my topic of college and how the expectation of education had changed over the years. College is becoming more and more of a requirement in the work force. This makes me wonder the real reasons students go to college. The reasons may have to do with authority figures in the student's lives such as parents and teachers. Specific to education, the teacher/faculty of school seem to be the main authority figures but in the lives of the students, the parents in addition to teachers play an authority figure role that affects the decisions the student makes. In addition, media and expectations from society affect whether a student decides to go to college or not. Since more and more people are going to college, it has become an expectation in society. Finally, the student themself, the motivation they have to continue learning in college.
Postman discusses the role of the authority and the "sin" of the student being too dependent on the authority figure. "The sin is in our unwillingness to examine our own beliefs, and in believing that our authorities cannot be wrong"(128). It seems tha often times in schooling (at least from my own experience), students expect the teachers to spoon feed the information to us, it is their job to give us all the information as the authority figures,"Knowledge is presented as a commodity to be acquired, never as a human struggle to understand, to overcome falsity, to stumble toward the truth."(116). It is the studnet's responsibility to take what the teacher says and think about it for themself instead of relying on the teacher to spell out the answers to everything. The student must prove they are thinking about the material. Students must think for themselves and make their own decisions but take the authority figures' information into consideration specifically when it comes to deciding whether or not to go to college after high school.
An important aspect of education, is the student's imput and motivation to learn.
"Neitzsche's famous aphorism is relevant here: 'He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how.' This applies as much to learning as to living"(4). If the student has a good reason for them to educate themself, they will deal with many possible ways of doing so. If the student is motivated enough, they have the potential to learn in almost any situation.
Topic: College
The End of Education by Neil Postman is about the critique of American education and possible alternatives to education in the United States. Postman talks about some of the major aspects of education including, authority, media and views of knowledge and education, and why and how students can be motivated to go to school and learn.
This relates to my topic of college and how the expectation of education had changed over the years. College is becoming more and more of a requirement in the work force. This makes me wonder the real reasons students go to college. The reasons may have to do with authority figures in the student's lives such as parents and teachers. Specific to education, the teacher/faculty of school seem to be the main authority figures but in the lives of the students, the parents in addition to teachers play an authority figure role that affects the decisions the student makes. In addition, media and expectations from society affect whether a student decides to go to college or not. Since more and more people are going to college, it has become an expectation in society. Finally, the student themself, the motivation they have to continue learning in college.
Postman discusses the role of the authority and the "sin" of the student being too dependent on the authority figure. "The sin is in our unwillingness to examine our own beliefs, and in believing that our authorities cannot be wrong"(128). It seems tha often times in schooling (at least from my own experience), students expect the teachers to spoon feed the information to us, it is their job to give us all the information as the authority figures,"Knowledge is presented as a commodity to be acquired, never as a human struggle to understand, to overcome falsity, to stumble toward the truth."(116). It is the studnet's responsibility to take what the teacher says and think about it for themself instead of relying on the teacher to spell out the answers to everything. The student must prove they are thinking about the material. Students must think for themselves and make their own decisions but take the authority figures' information into consideration specifically when it comes to deciding whether or not to go to college after high school.
An important aspect of education, is the student's imput and motivation to learn.
"Neitzsche's famous aphorism is relevant here: 'He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how.' This applies as much to learning as to living"(4). If the student has a good reason for them to educate themself, they will deal with many possible ways of doing so. If the student is motivated enough, they have the potential to learn in almost any situation.
Monday, March 15, 2010
More Thoughts on School- Hw 45
Ted Sizer's Speech
Ted Sizer seems to have a very simplistic view on how schools should be, things should be done according to the people in school (students and teachers), and not as much by the book. The students and teachers should have the freedom to do what they need to to fit their roles, and the curriculum should be able to fit for the teacher and the student. The set up seems to be planned out there's no room for uncertainties, "How do I teach toward deep understanding-the application of knowledge to an unfamiliar situation- when the syllabus allows no time for plumbing the unfamiliar?" What I found interesting was that he also says the students and teachers should "Get the incentives right," that the teachers and students should want to be in school for the right reason. Essentially, according to Sizer, the main reason student's learn and go to school, is to learn to think and ask questions.
Hirsch's Article
Sizer has a imminent view on how schools should be, Hirsch has a transcendent view. Hirsch believes school curriculums should be aimed towards what the students will face in their lives such as literature (newspapers and books) and standardized tests (SATs), "Students who possess this knowledge are prepared to participate in civic life, move up career ladders, succeed in college, converse confidently with a wide variety of Americans with whom they work or socialize, and generally have the esteem that comes with being regarded as an educated person." Basically that in order to fit in with the American culture as an adult, there are things that one must be educated about, and they are educated about this in school with the curriculum provided.
1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?
Intellectually, they just have different ideas on what students should know. Sizer has a view which allows students to be on different levels of knowledge as long as there is progression in their development of thinking skills whereas Hirsch's view of a student's intellect should be based on the expectations of society. I believe that generally, in both views, the emotional state of the student would be similar, regardless of the curriculum there is still pressure from parents, peers, and society that should be accounted for. Hirsch's view of school seems to be more practical than Sizer's because Hirsch's goes along with society's view whereas Sizer's is a little more independent to that. Expectations of fitting the American culture is a norm that is difficult to avoid thus, Sizer's theory less practical. I think it would be very difficult for the two theories to be adapted to work together because they have different goals. Hirsch's goal is to get to the next level whereas Sizer's goal is to learn and improve.
2. Which of the two theories do you find more resonant in your own experience? Has your education at one of Sizer's schools (he not only inspired SOF, he also came and visited) taught you to use your mind well, to be intellectually alert, to be able to think about important aspects of your life and society? Have you had any teachers that seemed inspired, now that you know about it, by Hirsch? For instance, would you say that the chemistry class's focus on molarity and ions and the periodic table of elements create an emphasis on knowledge?
I belive that Sizer's theory is resonant in my experience, School of the Future has a unique way of progressive learning with a different curriculum than most high schools. But recently, Hirsch's theory is becoming more resonant looking forward to college in the future. The competition between other schools that are more like Hirsch's theory are at a higher advantage because the students are easier to sort than students following Sizer's theory who are on different levels.
3. What additional points does reading these theorists make you think of, about your own education and philosophy?
It makes me think about my own incentives for school. I belive it is kind of hard to put your own reasoning for being in school when most of it is decided for you at such a young age. In addition there is the incentive of the teacher that matters as well. If the teacher has a good reason to teach aside from the money and going through the motions, the student follows and has a good reason to learn as well. If the teacher in interested, it allows the student to be too.
Ted Sizer seems to have a very simplistic view on how schools should be, things should be done according to the people in school (students and teachers), and not as much by the book. The students and teachers should have the freedom to do what they need to to fit their roles, and the curriculum should be able to fit for the teacher and the student. The set up seems to be planned out there's no room for uncertainties, "How do I teach toward deep understanding-the application of knowledge to an unfamiliar situation- when the syllabus allows no time for plumbing the unfamiliar?" What I found interesting was that he also says the students and teachers should "Get the incentives right," that the teachers and students should want to be in school for the right reason. Essentially, according to Sizer, the main reason student's learn and go to school, is to learn to think and ask questions.
Hirsch's Article
Sizer has a imminent view on how schools should be, Hirsch has a transcendent view. Hirsch believes school curriculums should be aimed towards what the students will face in their lives such as literature (newspapers and books) and standardized tests (SATs), "Students who possess this knowledge are prepared to participate in civic life, move up career ladders, succeed in college, converse confidently with a wide variety of Americans with whom they work or socialize, and generally have the esteem that comes with being regarded as an educated person." Basically that in order to fit in with the American culture as an adult, there are things that one must be educated about, and they are educated about this in school with the curriculum provided.
1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?
Intellectually, they just have different ideas on what students should know. Sizer has a view which allows students to be on different levels of knowledge as long as there is progression in their development of thinking skills whereas Hirsch's view of a student's intellect should be based on the expectations of society. I believe that generally, in both views, the emotional state of the student would be similar, regardless of the curriculum there is still pressure from parents, peers, and society that should be accounted for. Hirsch's view of school seems to be more practical than Sizer's because Hirsch's goes along with society's view whereas Sizer's is a little more independent to that. Expectations of fitting the American culture is a norm that is difficult to avoid thus, Sizer's theory less practical. I think it would be very difficult for the two theories to be adapted to work together because they have different goals. Hirsch's goal is to get to the next level whereas Sizer's goal is to learn and improve.
2. Which of the two theories do you find more resonant in your own experience? Has your education at one of Sizer's schools (he not only inspired SOF, he also came and visited) taught you to use your mind well, to be intellectually alert, to be able to think about important aspects of your life and society? Have you had any teachers that seemed inspired, now that you know about it, by Hirsch? For instance, would you say that the chemistry class's focus on molarity and ions and the periodic table of elements create an emphasis on knowledge?
I belive that Sizer's theory is resonant in my experience, School of the Future has a unique way of progressive learning with a different curriculum than most high schools. But recently, Hirsch's theory is becoming more resonant looking forward to college in the future. The competition between other schools that are more like Hirsch's theory are at a higher advantage because the students are easier to sort than students following Sizer's theory who are on different levels.
3. What additional points does reading these theorists make you think of, about your own education and philosophy?
It makes me think about my own incentives for school. I belive it is kind of hard to put your own reasoning for being in school when most of it is decided for you at such a young age. In addition there is the incentive of the teacher that matters as well. If the teacher has a good reason to teach aside from the money and going through the motions, the student follows and has a good reason to learn as well. If the teacher in interested, it allows the student to be too.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Hw 44 Big Expectations for School
Liberal Arts Education:
This website says that liberal arts colleges "provide an exceptionally effective learning environment for developing the kind of intellectual power and propensity for action that the world needs to tackle the daunting challenges we face." Basically, that liberal arts colleges are benficial because they allow students to solve problems, this is the mindset that is expected of students in this type of education.
In addition, liberal arts has "an obligation to help our students find a way to translate what they have learned into a potential career direction." The transcendant way of teaching, that education will lead to higher levels and lead to overall success, the ladder of education. But solving the problem at hand is iminant, dealing with the present situation. It seems as though liberal arts college has aspects of both transcendent (ladder) and iminant (current situation) education although arguably, the balance may not be evenly distributed I would guess that it is more transcendent than iminant because the main reasons people go to college to begin with are for the opportunities it provides for the future.
Obama's School Speech:
He talks about how no matter what you want to do in life, it requires an education "And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers." In some ways I agree, people do need to have a good background of knowledge in order to get into different work forces but I feel that many of requirements for education are exaggerated, maybe not everything we learn is absolutely necessary and there may be things left out in the curriculum.
He also says, "You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it" This seems like a very justified view on how people get into careers, that everybody works for their job, so they deserve the job they have which I do not necessarily agree with. Obviously a job is not going to fall into your lap without any effort at all. There has to be some sort of effort to obtain a career. But competition and connections I believe go hand in hand, if you have connections, you have a higher advantage when competeing for jobs so not every job necessarily requires the same amount of effort and 'hard work' from everyone if you know the right people.
Institutions:
This website talks about the benefits of institutions..."Institutions provide procedures through which human conduct is patterned, compelled to go, in grooves deemed desirable by society. And this trick is performed by making these grooves appear to the individual as the only possible ones." Basically that institutions allow for everyone to think the same way so that everyone has common knowledge. IT seems to me a form of manipulation for people to understand each other and cooperate to keep society running through institutions.
This website says that liberal arts colleges "provide an exceptionally effective learning environment for developing the kind of intellectual power and propensity for action that the world needs to tackle the daunting challenges we face." Basically, that liberal arts colleges are benficial because they allow students to solve problems, this is the mindset that is expected of students in this type of education.
In addition, liberal arts has "an obligation to help our students find a way to translate what they have learned into a potential career direction." The transcendant way of teaching, that education will lead to higher levels and lead to overall success, the ladder of education. But solving the problem at hand is iminant, dealing with the present situation. It seems as though liberal arts college has aspects of both transcendent (ladder) and iminant (current situation) education although arguably, the balance may not be evenly distributed I would guess that it is more transcendent than iminant because the main reasons people go to college to begin with are for the opportunities it provides for the future.
Obama's School Speech:
He talks about how no matter what you want to do in life, it requires an education "And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers." In some ways I agree, people do need to have a good background of knowledge in order to get into different work forces but I feel that many of requirements for education are exaggerated, maybe not everything we learn is absolutely necessary and there may be things left out in the curriculum.
He also says, "You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it" This seems like a very justified view on how people get into careers, that everybody works for their job, so they deserve the job they have which I do not necessarily agree with. Obviously a job is not going to fall into your lap without any effort at all. There has to be some sort of effort to obtain a career. But competition and connections I believe go hand in hand, if you have connections, you have a higher advantage when competeing for jobs so not every job necessarily requires the same amount of effort and 'hard work' from everyone if you know the right people.
Institutions:
This website talks about the benefits of institutions..."Institutions provide procedures through which human conduct is patterned, compelled to go, in grooves deemed desirable by society. And this trick is performed by making these grooves appear to the individual as the only possible ones." Basically that institutions allow for everyone to think the same way so that everyone has common knowledge. IT seems to me a form of manipulation for people to understand each other and cooperate to keep society running through institutions.
Monday, March 1, 2010
More Research More Thinking- 42
My focus for research was on how college has developed over the years. The differences in the amount of people going to college and how necessary it is now than it was before. Now there is much more competition to get a good education in society than before.
Why does it matter to you personally given the experiences you've had in your life - in terms of your feelings, hopes, memories, daily life?
This topic matters to me personally because I feel that for my generation, there is so much pressure to go to a good college and get a good education and the idea of a good education seems as though it disreguards the career path and the drawbacks of going to college. It is so hyped up in society so it makes me wonder, does it actually live up to the hype? And how does it compare to previous generations where it was accepted that not everyone went to college? How have the values in American culture changed in terms of education? It definitely affects my own daily life, schools seems to shape my mindset into just following the steps to get to the next level without even questioning the next level. School as a sorter, wants the students to just go by the system for what it is without questioning it.
Thinking about college a lot, I have hopes for enjoying my college experience socially and academically so it will help me with my career path. I want to feel accomplished by the time I finish college I want to feel confident in the career that I choose. These are hope that society and colleges seem to promise for students. While I have all these hopes for college, I feel like college is just another delay from the 'real world'. I feel like (from my own experience) society does not have too much respect teenagers so it feels like they are just keeping us away from the working force until they feel that we have matured enough to get into the work force. In addition, college is a possible delay for students to decide what they want to do for a good amount of their lives because as I have noticed from my own experience, teenagers can be very indecisive.
How does your topic matter existentially - in terms of the meaning of your life, of knowing who you are, of whether you live well before you die?
The image that I have in my head of living a 'well' life before dying is, seeing different cultures, going around the world, learning new things becaues you want to and not because it is a requirement in society, and you just leading your own life on your own standards. I believe that society's expecations of more education hinders our lives existentially for the majority, we only go to school high school because we have to, now that we have the choice of going to college or going to straight to work, the majority will choose college in this generation I'm guessing because it is expected of us by our parents and the society. People are looked down upon if they do not make something of themselves and people are convinced that after high school, college is the number one way to go.
Why does it matter to you personally given the experiences you've had in your life - in terms of your feelings, hopes, memories, daily life?
This topic matters to me personally because I feel that for my generation, there is so much pressure to go to a good college and get a good education and the idea of a good education seems as though it disreguards the career path and the drawbacks of going to college. It is so hyped up in society so it makes me wonder, does it actually live up to the hype? And how does it compare to previous generations where it was accepted that not everyone went to college? How have the values in American culture changed in terms of education? It definitely affects my own daily life, schools seems to shape my mindset into just following the steps to get to the next level without even questioning the next level. School as a sorter, wants the students to just go by the system for what it is without questioning it.
Thinking about college a lot, I have hopes for enjoying my college experience socially and academically so it will help me with my career path. I want to feel accomplished by the time I finish college I want to feel confident in the career that I choose. These are hope that society and colleges seem to promise for students. While I have all these hopes for college, I feel like college is just another delay from the 'real world'. I feel like (from my own experience) society does not have too much respect teenagers so it feels like they are just keeping us away from the working force until they feel that we have matured enough to get into the work force. In addition, college is a possible delay for students to decide what they want to do for a good amount of their lives because as I have noticed from my own experience, teenagers can be very indecisive.
How does your topic matter existentially - in terms of the meaning of your life, of knowing who you are, of whether you live well before you die?
The image that I have in my head of living a 'well' life before dying is, seeing different cultures, going around the world, learning new things becaues you want to and not because it is a requirement in society, and you just leading your own life on your own standards. I believe that society's expecations of more education hinders our lives existentially for the majority, we only go to school high school because we have to, now that we have the choice of going to college or going to straight to work, the majority will choose college in this generation I'm guessing because it is expected of us by our parents and the society. People are looked down upon if they do not make something of themselves and people are convinced that after high school, college is the number one way to go.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Initial Internet Research on Schooling- 41
"College Degree Not Required"
This article has a list of lots of career paths and what percentage of the people in those career paths earned a college education. "Jobs at the top of the list are good bets for people with no degree. Jobs at the bottom of the list are bad bets" at the top of the list is an air trafic controller with 32% of workers who got a college education, to an optometrist with 100%. It is a pretty long list but there is still a pretty good amount of jobs that do not require a college education.
But these jobs, although may not require a college degree, are they careers that anybody would want to spend their life doing? We also have to take into consideration that the careers I believe should be sometime people are willing to do for a good amount of time. The time and money spent on college should not be the only weighing factors. Recently, for me, there has been constant advertisement about college, that it opens up more options.
Why Should You Go To College?
McGuire says an important reason to go to college is for the opportunity it provides. "As opposed to generations of the past, high school graduates today are unable to obtain the number of high-paying jobs that were once available." The college expectations in society have changed over the years because of employment availability. It seems as though it is becoming more and more of a struggle to get a well paying job in the U.S. because this new expectation/requirement is a college degree.
McGuire also discussed in his article a topic that came up in my interviews; connections. "The more connections which are collected during your college career, the more options you will have when you begin your job search" College seems to be the time where a student having decided a career path, meets with people in this field, giving them a greater chance of success in this field of work. But connecting back to my interview, it seems as though you need these connections to get into college to begin with. Everything seems to be a competition of who you know and what connections you have more than the work you have done.
How Does Having a Degree Vs. No Degree Effect Employment Opportunities?
Similar to the first website I researched, this website provides a list of careers that do not require a college degree but it still makes a point to say that a college degree makes finding jobs easier. "While there are Employment Opportunities available to those with and without a degree, earning a degree can lead to higher paying positions, more options and more opportunities for promotion."
This website also demonstrates that the higher the amount of eduaction one attains, the less chance of facing unemployment issues, "However, the unemployment rate for those without a degree is higher than for those with one...Unemployment rates by amount of education, according to the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), www.afb.org, are: Less than a high school diploma: 6.8 percent [up to] Doctoral Degree: 1.4%"
Overall, these websites convey that college is a necessity in obtaining success in the work force. These sources talked very breifly about the change between generations, how in the past, the majority of students were not expected to continue education after high school to get a well paying job.
Competition in College Admissions:
There are more students applying to schools now than before. "this is another year of historically high numbers of applications at numerous schools...In addition, the advent of online applications has led to students applying to more schools, especially top students who are aware that their preferred schools are competitive." Recently there has been more competition for colleges. There is more demand for higher education in society. Because the majority of students now are going to college, everyone is expected to try for college even if it does not seem necessary for the student's choice in their career path. As seen in previous websites, going to college opens up more options, it leaves room for someone to change their mind. It also allows for higher paying jobs even though the cost of college is increasing.
It seems as though competition is increasing by the year, "Statistics from the 2006-2007 application season indicated that college admissions have become more competitive than ever," the top, most rigorous colleges' acceptance rates are decreasing,"The acceptance rates at Yale, Harvard, and Columbia fell below 10 per cent for fall 2007 admissions. Princeton's acceptance rate just cleared 10 per cent, and Dartmouth's was just over 12 per cent...there's no denying that admissions to top colleges and universities are highly competitive, and likely to remain so for years to come."
Works Cited
"Are College Admissions Getting More Complicated." College Admission. 2009. Web. 2 Mar 2010..
"The Best Career Opportunities, "College Degree Not Required"." CityTownInfo.com. 2007. Web. 24 Feb 2010..
MGuire, Jeff. "Importance of College Education." College View. hobsons, Web. 24 Feb 2010..
"How Does Having a Degree Vs. No Degree Effect Employment Opportunities?." DegreeDirectory.org. 2010. Web. 24 Feb 2010..
This article has a list of lots of career paths and what percentage of the people in those career paths earned a college education. "Jobs at the top of the list are good bets for people with no degree. Jobs at the bottom of the list are bad bets" at the top of the list is an air trafic controller with 32% of workers who got a college education, to an optometrist with 100%. It is a pretty long list but there is still a pretty good amount of jobs that do not require a college education.
But these jobs, although may not require a college degree, are they careers that anybody would want to spend their life doing? We also have to take into consideration that the careers I believe should be sometime people are willing to do for a good amount of time. The time and money spent on college should not be the only weighing factors. Recently, for me, there has been constant advertisement about college, that it opens up more options.
Why Should You Go To College?
McGuire says an important reason to go to college is for the opportunity it provides. "As opposed to generations of the past, high school graduates today are unable to obtain the number of high-paying jobs that were once available." The college expectations in society have changed over the years because of employment availability. It seems as though it is becoming more and more of a struggle to get a well paying job in the U.S. because this new expectation/requirement is a college degree.
McGuire also discussed in his article a topic that came up in my interviews; connections. "The more connections which are collected during your college career, the more options you will have when you begin your job search" College seems to be the time where a student having decided a career path, meets with people in this field, giving them a greater chance of success in this field of work. But connecting back to my interview, it seems as though you need these connections to get into college to begin with. Everything seems to be a competition of who you know and what connections you have more than the work you have done.
How Does Having a Degree Vs. No Degree Effect Employment Opportunities?
Similar to the first website I researched, this website provides a list of careers that do not require a college degree but it still makes a point to say that a college degree makes finding jobs easier. "While there are Employment Opportunities available to those with and without a degree, earning a degree can lead to higher paying positions, more options and more opportunities for promotion."
This website also demonstrates that the higher the amount of eduaction one attains, the less chance of facing unemployment issues, "However, the unemployment rate for those without a degree is higher than for those with one...Unemployment rates by amount of education, according to the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), www.afb.org, are: Less than a high school diploma: 6.8 percent [up to] Doctoral Degree: 1.4%"
Overall, these websites convey that college is a necessity in obtaining success in the work force. These sources talked very breifly about the change between generations, how in the past, the majority of students were not expected to continue education after high school to get a well paying job.
Competition in College Admissions:
There are more students applying to schools now than before. "this is another year of historically high numbers of applications at numerous schools...In addition, the advent of online applications has led to students applying to more schools, especially top students who are aware that their preferred schools are competitive." Recently there has been more competition for colleges. There is more demand for higher education in society. Because the majority of students now are going to college, everyone is expected to try for college even if it does not seem necessary for the student's choice in their career path. As seen in previous websites, going to college opens up more options, it leaves room for someone to change their mind. It also allows for higher paying jobs even though the cost of college is increasing.
It seems as though competition is increasing by the year, "Statistics from the 2006-2007 application season indicated that college admissions have become more competitive than ever," the top, most rigorous colleges' acceptance rates are decreasing,"The acceptance rates at Yale, Harvard, and Columbia fell below 10 per cent for fall 2007 admissions. Princeton's acceptance rate just cleared 10 per cent, and Dartmouth's was just over 12 per cent...there's no denying that admissions to top colleges and universities are highly competitive, and likely to remain so for years to come."
Works Cited
"Are College Admissions Getting More Complicated." College Admission. 2009. Web. 2 Mar 2010.
"The Best Career Opportunities, "College Degree Not Required"." CityTownInfo.com. 2007. Web. 24 Feb 2010.
MGuire, Jeff. "Importance of College Education." College View. hobsons, Web. 24 Feb 2010.
"How Does Having a Degree Vs. No Degree Effect Employment Opportunities?." DegreeDirectory.org. 2010. Web. 24 Feb 2010.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
School Interviews- 40
Part A:
The majority of my interviews were focused on the college process, the college experience, and whether college is worth the money. But a small portion of my interviews were focused on different types of schools and how students feel about those different types of schools.
a couple 10 year old girls that I spoke to talked about the types of schools they go to including, elementary school, acting school, and hebrew school and how they felt about these schools. One girl seems to enjoy acting school (from my perspective) but does not like any of them on a social level (drama with another girl). The other 10 year old said she did not like elementary school because it does not interest her but she does enjoy her acting school because she likes the people there. Based on these interviews, the people who are at your school affect how a student may feel about school. The social experience of school overpowers the academic experience in these cases.
I interviewed a European lady at my internship about college. I asked what she thought about the college application proccess. She said it is overly stressful and it can be simplified. College is so stressed about when it is just an extention of high school. She also talked about the competition and how it is not completely objective, there is still favoring going on and lots of future success depends on the connections you have.
In a similar conversation with a school of the future senior and we talked about the reqirements for the college application proccess. The colleges seem to be expecting lots of experience when the student is looking for experience. Students look into schools to gain the experience they are lacking but it makes the student feel like they are incapable of studying in a field because they do not fill the requirements to study in that field.
Going back to my interview with the European lady, I also asked her about her thoughts on the social experience of college, she thinks that it is effective to develop independence but it is also complicated for young people because there is this pressure to change or fail, the college social experience can vary depending on the individual experience. She has a history of going to college in London and college in America, so I asked her to talk about the differences in those experiences. She said that there is a different mentality between the two because they are two completely different cultures, she said she felt safer at her college in London than at her college in America. In addition, financially, London is less than America because of the different economic structure.
I intervewed a female sophomore college student from Florida about the college proccess. She thought you should not have to pay for the application proccess especially if you might get denied. But "it is what it is," the community college application is pretty simple but for universities and more rigorous schools require a more complex application proccess and if that is what you want then you have to apply yourself to get it done. She then started talking about test taking, she does not like it because it is not a strength of hers but it is necessary. I also interviewed a male sophomore college student from New York about the college proccess. He said it was at times annoying and it takes a long time.
I then asked the female sophomore if she thought the money and stress for college is worth the experience, she said that her cousin had an amazing college experience and she does not regret the money and the stress. The sophomore explained that she is a lawyer so financially in the long run it won't be as stressful as it would be for her because she wants to get into education where financially it might take longer for her to get out of debt from school. Overall, it depends on the career path and personal experience if it is worth the money and the stress. From the male sophomore's perspective, he said he enjoyed classes and likes learning so it is worth it.
Part B:
I think it is interesting how the social aspect of school, the people who are in your school, can make or break your school experience as discussed in my interview with two 10 year old girls. Your experience with school emotionally affects the overall experience (socially and academcially, although I believe people think more about the social experience more than the academic). It is also interesting how the social and academic parts of school depend on each other at times. If a student is having social problems, they might be less motivated to focus on the academics, or the opposite. A student might be distracted by social aspects of school. The academic part might help create the social part.
The female sophomore said "it is what it is" about the application proccess and it made me think about schools as a sorting machine. How we have to adapt to what society asks of us to be considered successfull if that means going through a rigorous application proccess for the risk of denial or the relief of approval. Even though she does not agree with test taking she believes it is neccessary. Her perspective seems to be that this is how society is and there is nothing we can do about it, we adapt to the level of work we think is suitable for ourselves. But what if expectations get so high that even the moderate levels are frowned upon? Should we push ourselves to risk stress and money? Or accept that we are not accepted?
In regards to the college application proccess, I wonder, does the college experience live up to the hype of the application proccess experience? which I should have asked in my interviews. There is so much stress over completing the application and waiting for the approval, does it match up to the reality of going to the college you chose and going through the experience after long periods of thinking about it.
The majority of my interviews were focused on the college process, the college experience, and whether college is worth the money. But a small portion of my interviews were focused on different types of schools and how students feel about those different types of schools.
a couple 10 year old girls that I spoke to talked about the types of schools they go to including, elementary school, acting school, and hebrew school and how they felt about these schools. One girl seems to enjoy acting school (from my perspective) but does not like any of them on a social level (drama with another girl). The other 10 year old said she did not like elementary school because it does not interest her but she does enjoy her acting school because she likes the people there. Based on these interviews, the people who are at your school affect how a student may feel about school. The social experience of school overpowers the academic experience in these cases.
I interviewed a European lady at my internship about college. I asked what she thought about the college application proccess. She said it is overly stressful and it can be simplified. College is so stressed about when it is just an extention of high school. She also talked about the competition and how it is not completely objective, there is still favoring going on and lots of future success depends on the connections you have.
In a similar conversation with a school of the future senior and we talked about the reqirements for the college application proccess. The colleges seem to be expecting lots of experience when the student is looking for experience. Students look into schools to gain the experience they are lacking but it makes the student feel like they are incapable of studying in a field because they do not fill the requirements to study in that field.
Going back to my interview with the European lady, I also asked her about her thoughts on the social experience of college, she thinks that it is effective to develop independence but it is also complicated for young people because there is this pressure to change or fail, the college social experience can vary depending on the individual experience. She has a history of going to college in London and college in America, so I asked her to talk about the differences in those experiences. She said that there is a different mentality between the two because they are two completely different cultures, she said she felt safer at her college in London than at her college in America. In addition, financially, London is less than America because of the different economic structure.
I intervewed a female sophomore college student from Florida about the college proccess. She thought you should not have to pay for the application proccess especially if you might get denied. But "it is what it is," the community college application is pretty simple but for universities and more rigorous schools require a more complex application proccess and if that is what you want then you have to apply yourself to get it done. She then started talking about test taking, she does not like it because it is not a strength of hers but it is necessary. I also interviewed a male sophomore college student from New York about the college proccess. He said it was at times annoying and it takes a long time.
I then asked the female sophomore if she thought the money and stress for college is worth the experience, she said that her cousin had an amazing college experience and she does not regret the money and the stress. The sophomore explained that she is a lawyer so financially in the long run it won't be as stressful as it would be for her because she wants to get into education where financially it might take longer for her to get out of debt from school. Overall, it depends on the career path and personal experience if it is worth the money and the stress. From the male sophomore's perspective, he said he enjoyed classes and likes learning so it is worth it.
Part B:
I think it is interesting how the social aspect of school, the people who are in your school, can make or break your school experience as discussed in my interview with two 10 year old girls. Your experience with school emotionally affects the overall experience (socially and academcially, although I believe people think more about the social experience more than the academic). It is also interesting how the social and academic parts of school depend on each other at times. If a student is having social problems, they might be less motivated to focus on the academics, or the opposite. A student might be distracted by social aspects of school. The academic part might help create the social part.
The female sophomore said "it is what it is" about the application proccess and it made me think about schools as a sorting machine. How we have to adapt to what society asks of us to be considered successfull if that means going through a rigorous application proccess for the risk of denial or the relief of approval. Even though she does not agree with test taking she believes it is neccessary. Her perspective seems to be that this is how society is and there is nothing we can do about it, we adapt to the level of work we think is suitable for ourselves. But what if expectations get so high that even the moderate levels are frowned upon? Should we push ourselves to risk stress and money? Or accept that we are not accepted?
In regards to the college application proccess, I wonder, does the college experience live up to the hype of the application proccess experience? which I should have asked in my interviews. There is so much stress over completing the application and waiting for the approval, does it match up to the reality of going to the college you chose and going through the experience after long periods of thinking about it.
Monday, February 8, 2010
First School Assignment- 39
Part A:
Please write 3 each of the most interesting, fascinating, powerful questions, ideas, and experiences you've encountered about school.
Why do we have to go to school now, at such a young age?
What parts of the school curriculum do we need now? Or at all?
What should be added to or taken out of the school curriculum?
What are the pros and cons of school?
How can they be altered to make school time spent more wisely?
What can be done to make our own learning experiences more worth while?
What are the personal and emotional experiences with school?
What is good/bad about these experiences?
How will the social experience of school help or hinder us now? in the future?
Part B:
Please explore one aspect or moment of school in a 2-4 paragraphs. Show us what's strange or great or awful about it. Talk about how you feel about it - how do you think it came to be - what consequences it produces.
I think that it is interesting how we interact with the people in our school when school is just a routine part of the first 18+ years of life. I have made some amazing friends through my experience in school so even though there are things that we learn that don't seem so important or interesting, it seems okay when you have interesting people to go though it with. I believe that the general view of school is that it is a boring place where we just kill time until we have to leave and do whatever we want. But personally, I don't find it as boring as people make it out to be. I don't necessarily jump out of bed every morning excited to come to school but its not completely boring either.
Another interesting aspect of school is that it is supposed to prepare us for the future. It takes almost 20 years before society believes we are mature and ready enough for the real world. The authority figures hype up the idea of the work force and the real world for so long. The four years of high school prepare us for college and the four + years of college prepare us for our career that we are supposed to know. I believe that all these several years of preparing is delaying us. Those who know what they want to do have to fill the years of required courses to fulfill that career choice. But I guess if one does not know what they want to do, they have several years to decide. I'm not sure which is better.
But I do believe that school and college should not be enforced with so much pressure. It looks so bad if you have not gone through high school or college. People do not take you seriously if you have not gone through the several years of schooling that you will most likely forget within your experience in your career anyway (more specifically the generic curriculum learned in high school). I do think education is important but there should be more freedom. Society makes me believe they want me to be like everyone else, go to high school, go to college, get a generic job and be just like everyone else.
Please write 3 each of the most interesting, fascinating, powerful questions, ideas, and experiences you've encountered about school.
Why do we have to go to school now, at such a young age?
What parts of the school curriculum do we need now? Or at all?
What should be added to or taken out of the school curriculum?
What are the pros and cons of school?
How can they be altered to make school time spent more wisely?
What can be done to make our own learning experiences more worth while?
What are the personal and emotional experiences with school?
What is good/bad about these experiences?
How will the social experience of school help or hinder us now? in the future?
Part B:
Please explore one aspect or moment of school in a 2-4 paragraphs. Show us what's strange or great or awful about it. Talk about how you feel about it - how do you think it came to be - what consequences it produces.
I think that it is interesting how we interact with the people in our school when school is just a routine part of the first 18+ years of life. I have made some amazing friends through my experience in school so even though there are things that we learn that don't seem so important or interesting, it seems okay when you have interesting people to go though it with. I believe that the general view of school is that it is a boring place where we just kill time until we have to leave and do whatever we want. But personally, I don't find it as boring as people make it out to be. I don't necessarily jump out of bed every morning excited to come to school but its not completely boring either.
Another interesting aspect of school is that it is supposed to prepare us for the future. It takes almost 20 years before society believes we are mature and ready enough for the real world. The authority figures hype up the idea of the work force and the real world for so long. The four years of high school prepare us for college and the four + years of college prepare us for our career that we are supposed to know. I believe that all these several years of preparing is delaying us. Those who know what they want to do have to fill the years of required courses to fulfill that career choice. But I guess if one does not know what they want to do, they have several years to decide. I'm not sure which is better.
But I do believe that school and college should not be enforced with so much pressure. It looks so bad if you have not gone through high school or college. People do not take you seriously if you have not gone through the several years of schooling that you will most likely forget within your experience in your career anyway (more specifically the generic curriculum learned in high school). I do think education is important but there should be more freedom. Society makes me believe they want me to be like everyone else, go to high school, go to college, get a generic job and be just like everyone else.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Art Project Cool- 38
The Cool Fool from Sandy G. on Vimeo.
1. What insights about cool does the art integrate? What do you hope people will realize or question from their encounter with your art?
Some insights about cool that this piece of art integrates is the paradox of trying. Trying to be cool is uncool but you cant be cool unless you put in some sort of effort but it just cannot be shown. The main character "Mike" is seen in several different ways. He did not seem to try very hard to get people's attention while playing baskeyball in the gym. When he does not try the is left unnoticed by one girl and has another girl falling for him. In the cafeteria it was clear that he was trying to get some sort of attention when he walked in. When he does try, people are more critical about his coolness. No matter what you do people are going to have mixed opinions of you. There is no deffinite way of getting everyone's approval. There is no definite way of being cool.
2. Describe the process of making the project - how'd you do each step? If it was a group project, what did you contribute?
It was a rough start in our group (me, Andy, Carrie, Kate, and Rachel J.) to create the video because we could not decide what we wanted to do that would have everyone involved. We finally decided on basing our idea on the show "The Office" where the basic set up is that a scene happens and the characters who are in the scene say their point of view and what they think of the situation. This allowed everyone do have an acting part and we all contributed our own ideas while edited together.
First we did the personal parts where everyone said their character's opinion, then we created the group part. This part was a little different from what we originally planned where there was a "Cool Mike" and an "Uncool Mike" as two different situations with different characters showing the different reactions to Mike. We ended up having Mike as one person where others had mixed feelings about him which seems a little more realistic and simpler to convey. We showed Mike interacing with other people in school and we see him presenting himself in a more casual way and in a more "obnoxious" way. Once we had all of our footage we got together to put all the clips in the decided order and adding necessary effects.
3. Does making art seem cool to you? Why or why not?
I think making are is cool. It is a cool way to "show don't tell." I love making art because there are so many possibilities and ideas to choose from that will fit the art's message, you have a lot of freedom to creating art in creative ways. It can be challenging at times because you want to make something that will grab the audience's attention in a way that allows them to understand what you are trying to show while enjoying the piece of art but once you overcome the challenge it can be very rewarding. Specifically to this video, it was hard at first in deciding what to do but once we did decide, it was cool to collaborate with the rest of my group and make something that we were happy with. I feel like in general, art is something almost everyone can connect to. Art is a general form of expression it can be through audio, visual, movement, there are so many different ways. I think most people can connect with art in one way or another.
Friday, January 22, 2010
HW 37 Cool Paper Done Draft
The "cool" people are the temporary elite of a group that people tend to look up to. It is often you find many people are looking to be "cool," trying to follow the complex and nearly impossible steps to being cool. Coolness is a delusional tragic trap that convinces people it will solve problems of meaning and significance but only worsens them.
Paradoxes and contradictions to the general idea of what cool prevents us from having a clear understanding of how to attempt being cool and does not allow us to attain coolness. One paradox is that if you are cool, you cannot look like you are trying to be cool; it has to be an authentic coolness. An excerpt from the show, The Simpson’s, is used as an example to show this paradox.
"Lisa: That song is so lame. /Homer: So lame that it's... cool? / Bart+Lisa: No. / Marge: Am I cool, kids? / Bart+Lisa: No. / Marge: Good. I'm glad. And that's what makes me cool, not caring, right? / Bart+Lisa: No. / Marge: Well, how the hell do you be cool? I feel like we've tried everything here. / Homer: Wait, Marge. Maybe if you're truly cool, you don't need to be told you're cool. / Bart: Well, sure you do. /
Lisa: How else would you know?"
It seems as though if you admit you're cool you are not because being cool is not caring. But if you're uncool, admitting that is acceptable--the song can be so lame that it's cool. But then how can you know if you're cool without asking and sounding like you're trying too hard? We all seem like we try so hard, trying different tactics of attaining coolness to get others to like you and according to the paradox, it leaves us uncool for trying too hard. This paradox of cool is a trap to make us think that reaching coolness will make us feel more significant.
Another paradox of cool is that being cool is being "real" and authentic. But especially as teens, we are all going through the struggle of finding ourselves so how can we be our authentic selves if we do not know what that is. In class we read an excerpt of Our Town by Thornton Wilder where two of the main characters, Emily and George were having a conversation about their feelings for each other, in this scene, the two characters were being sincere because they were not playing the "cool" role. We then compared this to the movie, Rebel Without a Cause starring James Dean who was an icon of cool. In this movie, the group of cool kids at the high school are constantly being ironic and trying to be funny and making jokes so they will be accepted by the others. In this comparison, the group of kids who are clearly trying to be funny are seen as the cool ones and the sincere couple are seen as just average teens. "We trap ourselves in this paradox where being a bad ass is cooler than being sincere," (Esther Dionisio 1/21/10) even though authenticity is a trait of coolness. This is another paradox as a trap to coolness.
On a website titled "How to Be Cool" there are several steps in attaining coolness. Number one is not caring what others think. Being indifferent, but still having a general view of how others perceive you. You have to be confident, be different, say what you think, laugh at yourself. Individualism is also an important aspect, be relaxed, and be social without coming on to strong to other people. There seems to be many regulations in being cool. One must be a unique individual, but unique isn’t always "cool", someone you can call unique can also be seen as weird in a negative way. And in one of my interviews, a girl is considered cool but she was not unique because she dressed like everyone else. There does not seem to be a clear way to differentiate the two, trying to be cool has many contradictions that prevent one from being cool; people feel disappointed and insignificant as a result of being rejected by coolness.
Capitalism influences competition and consuming commodities, it is a way of presenting what cool is and is a trap to make us run in circles following the trends spending money. The film, Merchants of Cool, portrays the message that the corporations manipulate teens because they are vulnerable. They take advantage of teens as an easy target for their profits. Capitalists find the easiest way to make the most profit, even if that means creating these roles and norms for teenagers and influencing them to be cool highly affecting their lives. Media holds huge role in our lifestyles, "the average teen in 2001 sees 3000 advertisements a day," so we fall into the trap that the newest item to purchase is cool because it is one of our main resources. We get caught in the trap of buying things that we think will make us cooler.
Capitalism convincing us to be cool for our money tells us to be a leader, not a follower. Being a leader according to capitalism is being able to get a large amount of people to like what you like and buy what you buy. Without followers there would be no leaders. If everyone wants to be the cool leader, the majority of them will not be able to reach coolness because only a select amount of people can be temporarily cool. Coolness is a trap that deludes people into believing anyone can reach coolness and become someone of importance but in reality only a select amount can.
Based on Friedman's lecture on the Psychology of Cool (12/8/09), giving others the power to determine your coolness makes you vulnerable, because teens are influenced by the idea of being cool, the vast majority of teens are insecure. Corporate companies take advantage of this and use it as a technique to target teenagers, "Teens are like Africa" (Merchants of Cool) they colonize our consciousness. We all want to be valued so the marketing companies use that and flatter the chosen audience (teens) to get their attention.
Running after coolness despite the traps of paradoxes and competition, allows you to fall under the larger trap of emptiness. We feel emptiness because we are always looking for happiness and significance and coolness so we are disappointed when we are faced with unhappiness. "Emptiness as a human condition is a sense of generalized boredom, social alienation and apathy. Feelings of emptiness often accompany depression, loneliness, [or] despair. “As Matt Fried says, humans are built with the ability to feel negative emotions as well as positive ones. We can't expect other people to determine our emotions when we give them the power to decide whether we are "cool," or not. Our insecurities lead us to wonder if we are accepted by others. Cool allows us to fall into the trap of emptiness when we are faced with negative emotions if we are not accepted in society.
Also relating to Ralph Ellison's, Invisible Man, the main character goes through a similar routine of cool and emptiness. He joins a brotherhood and feels a sense of importance, being "Introduced as a kind of hero"(358) that people care about. Over time he realizes that they were only using him as a tool, "a material, a natural resource to be used."(508) for their group and he says "I felt suddenly empty...Up to now I had felt a wholeness...wholeness that guaranteed that it would change the course of history."(406). He thought he would be a significant figure in the world filling/covering up his emptiness but lost that cover up over time. The connection between emptiness and cool in this case is being cool does not last for as long as you would want it to because things change and people move on and this leaves you with a feeling of emptiness.
In trying to being cool, we often look for a sense of importance to make us feel better about ourselves. We try to find our meaning in the world and we aggrandize ourselves to prove this meaning but often times the positive attention we want to receive is not always given to us. For example, tattoos can be seen as an addition or an extra part of someone's role they perform. It is a representation or imitation of part of their identity. Girls get small tattoos on their ankle, showing their gender (the ankle being seen as a feminine body part) or the tough guy getting a tattoo on their tri-cep (shown as masculinity). It is part of the costume of their performance. They adjust what they wear to show off their tattoo so it can be shown as apart of their character. Almost like a more permanent accessory, like the thick chain for boys and the thin for girls. Accessories of a character's costume are designed as signifiers to show gender, character and personality. Tattoos can be seen as a tactic to attract people into questioning their character. Trying to get people's attention and approval of "coolness," but even is someone is seen as "cool" because of the way one might aggrandize the self, it only lasts for a short period of time.
Trying to fit into the archetypes that best fit ourselves leaves us feeling empty when we cannot completely fulfill that role. For example in the movie The Breakfast Club, all of the general stereotypes are stuck in detention together, each of them playing the role that they fit into, "a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess, a criminal...". They eventually become friends with each other despite the expectations of not associating with people outside of their social group.
This film showed the dominant views of the cool kids in a typical high school, the jock, the princess, and the rebel, and the uncool kids, the geek and the basket case (unique but uncool?). Each character fulfilled their archetype. In the beginning, "the princess," "the criminal" and "the athlete" think they are better than the others, "the brain" obediently sitting at his desk and "the basket case" in the back kind of just doing whatever she wants. Throughout the movie they escape these norms by admitting that they don't fit them.
The Brain:
I can't have an F, I can't have it
and I know my parents can't have it!
Even if I aced the rest of the
semester, I'm still only a B. And
everything's ruined for me!
He is struggling to fulfill expectations he and his parents have for him to be "the brain" that has straight A's.
The Princess:
I hate having to go
along with everything my friends say!...
You know, you just don't understand
the pressure that they can put on
you!
Although she does not always agree with what her friends say or do, she feels like she has to go along with them anyway in order to perform her part in their high school. She defies her norm by saying she does not like the pressure her friends put on her.
The Athlete:
it's all because of me and
my old man. Oh God, I fucking hate him!...
"Andrew, you've got to be number one! I
won't tolerate any losers in this
family... Win. Win! WIN!!!"...
sometimes, I wish... he
could forget all about me...
He cannot take the pressure he receives from his father who expects him to be a winner because he fears that he cannot fill that expectation.
The Basket Case:
My home life is un...satisfying...
[my parents] ignore me...
Although throughout the movie she comes off as a loner who does her own thing, she lacks attention from her parents that she wishes she had. She does not fill her archetype of the basket case by being independent because she wants attention from her parents.
The Criminal:
(as his father)
Stupid, worthless, no good, God
damned, freeloading, son of a bitch,
retarded, bigmouth, know it all,
asshole, jerk!
(as his mother)
You forgot ugly, lazy and
disrespectful.
As the criminal, he also has to fill the image of the loner who does whatever he wants but he wants his parent’s approval which is not part of his archetype. All five of these character fall under the trap of trying to be something because they are unable to fill those roles completely.
They all come to the conclusion that,” we’re all pretty bizarre! Some of us are just better at hiding it, that's all." We all have problems and being "cool" or trying to be, is just a way of pretending that we are happy and avoiding/denying the fact that our lives are not perfect and our lives do not hold as much of a significance in the world as we would like them to. Each character in this film has felt some sort of emptiness because they feel that they were unsuitable for the "box" or the label they are in. No one can always be accepted by everyone, people are deluded to expect this so people fall under the trap of trying to be cool and not being able to reach it and thus feeling sadness or emptiness.
Overall we all look for the approval of others because of our insecurities and our own perspective of ourselves are not enough. It is a struggle we all go through trying not to listen to the opinions other people have of us. We place our trust in other peoples' judgments of ourselves and are faced with feeling empty and insignificant because we will not always hear positive feedback about our character or identity. Coolness is a tragic trap that convinces people being cool will make you important. Or maybe it isn't a trap for everyone. It is possible there is a group of people who try to be cool and just are, they are well liked and they fit their role because they adapt to it and they are happy. I would argue against this that happiness does not last forever so even if you attain coolness, there are still challenges and struggles that cool people have to make.
Personally, I believe that I have fallen into the trap of coolness. I fill my role in society as the smart nice girl but I am not always satisfied with this role, and I believe the archetype does not capture everything. The brain is more than just a nerd and the criminal is more than just a badass (or at least I'd like not think so). One's identity is covered and defied by the expectations and the norms. We are being labeled (by ourselves or others) before we can even really be sure of our own identities or who we want to be. Once you are in the trap it is not very easy to get out, it is a struggle to change your maps or change your boxes. How do we change the views of ourselves without looking like a poser? Does it matter what people think of us anyway? What do we do now?
Works Cited:
"Albert Camus." Wikipedia. 13 Dec 2009. Web. 17 Dec 2009. .
Dionisio, Esther. "Comments." People These Days. Blogger, 21 Jan 2010. Web. 24 Jan 2010.
Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. New York: Second Vintage International Edition, 1980. Print.
"Emptiness." Wikipedia. 29 Nov 2009. Web. 17 Dec 2009. .
"Existentialism." Wikipedia. 17 Dec 2009. Web. 17 Dec 2009. .
Fried, Matt. "Psychology of Cool." Social Studies Class. 127 e 22nd, New York. 08 Dec 2009. Lecture.
Goodman, Barak, Dir. Merchants of Cool. PBS: 2001, Film.
"How To Be Cool ." iloveindia.com. Web. 7 Dec 2009. .
Hughes, John. "The Breakfast Club." awesomefilm.com. 1985. WDBG@AOL.COM, Web. 7 Dec 2009. .
Ray, Nicholas, Dir. Rebel Without a Cause . Warner Brothers: 1955, Film.
"Theories of cool." wikipedia.org. 2000. Web. 7 Dec 2009. .
Wilder, Thornton. Our Town. New York, NY: 1938. Print.
Paradoxes and contradictions to the general idea of what cool prevents us from having a clear understanding of how to attempt being cool and does not allow us to attain coolness. One paradox is that if you are cool, you cannot look like you are trying to be cool; it has to be an authentic coolness. An excerpt from the show, The Simpson’s, is used as an example to show this paradox.
"Lisa: That song is so lame. /Homer: So lame that it's... cool? / Bart+Lisa: No. / Marge: Am I cool, kids? / Bart+Lisa: No. / Marge: Good. I'm glad. And that's what makes me cool, not caring, right? / Bart+Lisa: No. / Marge: Well, how the hell do you be cool? I feel like we've tried everything here. / Homer: Wait, Marge. Maybe if you're truly cool, you don't need to be told you're cool. / Bart: Well, sure you do. /
Lisa: How else would you know?"
It seems as though if you admit you're cool you are not because being cool is not caring. But if you're uncool, admitting that is acceptable--the song can be so lame that it's cool. But then how can you know if you're cool without asking and sounding like you're trying too hard? We all seem like we try so hard, trying different tactics of attaining coolness to get others to like you and according to the paradox, it leaves us uncool for trying too hard. This paradox of cool is a trap to make us think that reaching coolness will make us feel more significant.
Another paradox of cool is that being cool is being "real" and authentic. But especially as teens, we are all going through the struggle of finding ourselves so how can we be our authentic selves if we do not know what that is. In class we read an excerpt of Our Town by Thornton Wilder where two of the main characters, Emily and George were having a conversation about their feelings for each other, in this scene, the two characters were being sincere because they were not playing the "cool" role. We then compared this to the movie, Rebel Without a Cause starring James Dean who was an icon of cool. In this movie, the group of cool kids at the high school are constantly being ironic and trying to be funny and making jokes so they will be accepted by the others. In this comparison, the group of kids who are clearly trying to be funny are seen as the cool ones and the sincere couple are seen as just average teens. "We trap ourselves in this paradox where being a bad ass is cooler than being sincere," (Esther Dionisio 1/21/10) even though authenticity is a trait of coolness. This is another paradox as a trap to coolness.
On a website titled "How to Be Cool" there are several steps in attaining coolness. Number one is not caring what others think. Being indifferent, but still having a general view of how others perceive you. You have to be confident, be different, say what you think, laugh at yourself. Individualism is also an important aspect, be relaxed, and be social without coming on to strong to other people. There seems to be many regulations in being cool. One must be a unique individual, but unique isn’t always "cool", someone you can call unique can also be seen as weird in a negative way. And in one of my interviews, a girl is considered cool but she was not unique because she dressed like everyone else. There does not seem to be a clear way to differentiate the two, trying to be cool has many contradictions that prevent one from being cool; people feel disappointed and insignificant as a result of being rejected by coolness.
Capitalism influences competition and consuming commodities, it is a way of presenting what cool is and is a trap to make us run in circles following the trends spending money. The film, Merchants of Cool, portrays the message that the corporations manipulate teens because they are vulnerable. They take advantage of teens as an easy target for their profits. Capitalists find the easiest way to make the most profit, even if that means creating these roles and norms for teenagers and influencing them to be cool highly affecting their lives. Media holds huge role in our lifestyles, "the average teen in 2001 sees 3000 advertisements a day," so we fall into the trap that the newest item to purchase is cool because it is one of our main resources. We get caught in the trap of buying things that we think will make us cooler.
Capitalism convincing us to be cool for our money tells us to be a leader, not a follower. Being a leader according to capitalism is being able to get a large amount of people to like what you like and buy what you buy. Without followers there would be no leaders. If everyone wants to be the cool leader, the majority of them will not be able to reach coolness because only a select amount of people can be temporarily cool. Coolness is a trap that deludes people into believing anyone can reach coolness and become someone of importance but in reality only a select amount can.
Based on Friedman's lecture on the Psychology of Cool (12/8/09), giving others the power to determine your coolness makes you vulnerable, because teens are influenced by the idea of being cool, the vast majority of teens are insecure. Corporate companies take advantage of this and use it as a technique to target teenagers, "Teens are like Africa" (Merchants of Cool) they colonize our consciousness. We all want to be valued so the marketing companies use that and flatter the chosen audience (teens) to get their attention.
Running after coolness despite the traps of paradoxes and competition, allows you to fall under the larger trap of emptiness. We feel emptiness because we are always looking for happiness and significance and coolness so we are disappointed when we are faced with unhappiness. "Emptiness as a human condition is a sense of generalized boredom, social alienation and apathy. Feelings of emptiness often accompany depression, loneliness, [or] despair. “As Matt Fried says, humans are built with the ability to feel negative emotions as well as positive ones. We can't expect other people to determine our emotions when we give them the power to decide whether we are "cool," or not. Our insecurities lead us to wonder if we are accepted by others. Cool allows us to fall into the trap of emptiness when we are faced with negative emotions if we are not accepted in society.
Also relating to Ralph Ellison's, Invisible Man, the main character goes through a similar routine of cool and emptiness. He joins a brotherhood and feels a sense of importance, being "Introduced as a kind of hero"(358) that people care about. Over time he realizes that they were only using him as a tool, "a material, a natural resource to be used."(508) for their group and he says "I felt suddenly empty...Up to now I had felt a wholeness...wholeness that guaranteed that it would change the course of history."(406). He thought he would be a significant figure in the world filling/covering up his emptiness but lost that cover up over time. The connection between emptiness and cool in this case is being cool does not last for as long as you would want it to because things change and people move on and this leaves you with a feeling of emptiness.
In trying to being cool, we often look for a sense of importance to make us feel better about ourselves. We try to find our meaning in the world and we aggrandize ourselves to prove this meaning but often times the positive attention we want to receive is not always given to us. For example, tattoos can be seen as an addition or an extra part of someone's role they perform. It is a representation or imitation of part of their identity. Girls get small tattoos on their ankle, showing their gender (the ankle being seen as a feminine body part) or the tough guy getting a tattoo on their tri-cep (shown as masculinity). It is part of the costume of their performance. They adjust what they wear to show off their tattoo so it can be shown as apart of their character. Almost like a more permanent accessory, like the thick chain for boys and the thin for girls. Accessories of a character's costume are designed as signifiers to show gender, character and personality. Tattoos can be seen as a tactic to attract people into questioning their character. Trying to get people's attention and approval of "coolness," but even is someone is seen as "cool" because of the way one might aggrandize the self, it only lasts for a short period of time.
Trying to fit into the archetypes that best fit ourselves leaves us feeling empty when we cannot completely fulfill that role. For example in the movie The Breakfast Club, all of the general stereotypes are stuck in detention together, each of them playing the role that they fit into, "a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess, a criminal...". They eventually become friends with each other despite the expectations of not associating with people outside of their social group.
This film showed the dominant views of the cool kids in a typical high school, the jock, the princess, and the rebel, and the uncool kids, the geek and the basket case (unique but uncool?). Each character fulfilled their archetype. In the beginning, "the princess," "the criminal" and "the athlete" think they are better than the others, "the brain" obediently sitting at his desk and "the basket case" in the back kind of just doing whatever she wants. Throughout the movie they escape these norms by admitting that they don't fit them.
The Brain:
I can't have an F, I can't have it
and I know my parents can't have it!
Even if I aced the rest of the
semester, I'm still only a B. And
everything's ruined for me!
He is struggling to fulfill expectations he and his parents have for him to be "the brain" that has straight A's.
The Princess:
I hate having to go
along with everything my friends say!...
You know, you just don't understand
the pressure that they can put on
you!
Although she does not always agree with what her friends say or do, she feels like she has to go along with them anyway in order to perform her part in their high school. She defies her norm by saying she does not like the pressure her friends put on her.
The Athlete:
it's all because of me and
my old man. Oh God, I fucking hate him!...
"Andrew, you've got to be number one! I
won't tolerate any losers in this
family... Win. Win! WIN!!!"...
sometimes, I wish... he
could forget all about me...
He cannot take the pressure he receives from his father who expects him to be a winner because he fears that he cannot fill that expectation.
The Basket Case:
My home life is un...satisfying...
[my parents] ignore me...
Although throughout the movie she comes off as a loner who does her own thing, she lacks attention from her parents that she wishes she had. She does not fill her archetype of the basket case by being independent because she wants attention from her parents.
The Criminal:
(as his father)
Stupid, worthless, no good, God
damned, freeloading, son of a bitch,
retarded, bigmouth, know it all,
asshole, jerk!
(as his mother)
You forgot ugly, lazy and
disrespectful.
As the criminal, he also has to fill the image of the loner who does whatever he wants but he wants his parent’s approval which is not part of his archetype. All five of these character fall under the trap of trying to be something because they are unable to fill those roles completely.
They all come to the conclusion that,” we’re all pretty bizarre! Some of us are just better at hiding it, that's all." We all have problems and being "cool" or trying to be, is just a way of pretending that we are happy and avoiding/denying the fact that our lives are not perfect and our lives do not hold as much of a significance in the world as we would like them to. Each character in this film has felt some sort of emptiness because they feel that they were unsuitable for the "box" or the label they are in. No one can always be accepted by everyone, people are deluded to expect this so people fall under the trap of trying to be cool and not being able to reach it and thus feeling sadness or emptiness.
Overall we all look for the approval of others because of our insecurities and our own perspective of ourselves are not enough. It is a struggle we all go through trying not to listen to the opinions other people have of us. We place our trust in other peoples' judgments of ourselves and are faced with feeling empty and insignificant because we will not always hear positive feedback about our character or identity. Coolness is a tragic trap that convinces people being cool will make you important. Or maybe it isn't a trap for everyone. It is possible there is a group of people who try to be cool and just are, they are well liked and they fit their role because they adapt to it and they are happy. I would argue against this that happiness does not last forever so even if you attain coolness, there are still challenges and struggles that cool people have to make.
Personally, I believe that I have fallen into the trap of coolness. I fill my role in society as the smart nice girl but I am not always satisfied with this role, and I believe the archetype does not capture everything. The brain is more than just a nerd and the criminal is more than just a badass (or at least I'd like not think so). One's identity is covered and defied by the expectations and the norms. We are being labeled (by ourselves or others) before we can even really be sure of our own identities or who we want to be. Once you are in the trap it is not very easy to get out, it is a struggle to change your maps or change your boxes. How do we change the views of ourselves without looking like a poser? Does it matter what people think of us anyway? What do we do now?
Works Cited:
"Albert Camus." Wikipedia. 13 Dec 2009. Web. 17 Dec 2009. .
Dionisio, Esther. "Comments." People These Days. Blogger, 21 Jan 2010. Web. 24 Jan 2010.
Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. New York: Second Vintage International Edition, 1980. Print.
"Emptiness." Wikipedia. 29 Nov 2009. Web. 17 Dec 2009. .
"Existentialism." Wikipedia. 17 Dec 2009. Web. 17 Dec 2009. .
Fried, Matt. "Psychology of Cool." Social Studies Class. 127 e 22nd, New York. 08 Dec 2009. Lecture.
Goodman, Barak, Dir. Merchants of Cool. PBS: 2001, Film.
"How To Be Cool ." iloveindia.com. Web. 7 Dec 2009. .
Hughes, John. "The Breakfast Club." awesomefilm.com. 1985. WDBG@AOL.COM, Web. 7 Dec 2009. .
Ray, Nicholas, Dir. Rebel Without a Cause . Warner Brothers: 1955, Film.
"Theories of cool." wikipedia.org. 2000. Web. 7 Dec 2009. .
Wilder, Thornton. Our Town. New York, NY: 1938. Print.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
HW 36- Triangle Partner Help
Esther-
I got that your main idea was that we are puppets and we allow the idea of cool to control the way we present ourselves. I would rephrase this, as, we are puppets of coolness allowing it to control our presentation of self. I'm not sure if that is the best way to word your thesis, but is it another possible idea for you to work with.
We allow what we perceive as cool to control the way we identify ourselves to then apply that to how we present our character. We try to give off the right signals so people will see us in the way we want to be seen. For example, in the James Dean movie, Rebel Without a Cause, the main character was presented with what was cool at the beginning. Being ironic, making jokes, and presenting masculinity was cool to him. He allowed this perception of cool to control the way he began to act at his school. He sends off signals of cool and masculine by smoking cigarettes, and competing with the other cool masculine character. He sent off these signals because he wanted people to see him as a cool guy.
When you say "We do this to fill this emptiness in ourselves. Some sort of hole is created from our lives and to fill this we strive to make ourselves feel much better about ourselves." It might be interesting to include where this emptiness comes from to begin with.
I like the connection you made to the Fefe Dobson song but I think it would make your arument stronger if you analyzed the lyrics a little more and connected that back to your thesis.
Finally, just conclude everything and summarize all your arguments and maybe include some of your own final thoughts, you suggested I do that in my previous essay and I think it worked out pretty well so I think you should try it out too.
This is a good rough draft!
-Sandy
Omar- I would rewrite your thesis as: Cool is an unstoppable addiction to personal connections.
People seem to be so caught up in aggrandizing themeselves they are deluded by the real reason they try to make themselves look a certain way. Most people say "I do it because I like it" or "I do it for me" when people ask why they do something to present themselves a certain way. In reality, people aggrandize their self to send off signals and clues to allow people to see their identity. For examples, girls may swing their hips while they walk so people will see their feminity and understand clearly that that person is a girl. Whereas a boy might walk more stifly to express masculinity so people understand that the boy is a boy. People are so addicted and identified with their presentation of cool, the are deluded by the reality of their performance.
You have lots of great arguments but I think you just need to include some evidence to back up those arguements.
you say, "We go to great lengths and put ourselves through extreme circumstances to connect with others. We are willing to pierce our skin and have tattoos drawn on our skin. We are willing to dye our hair, burn our hair, wear fake hair just to impress and connect with others. We even have surgery to change our appearance so that we can feel more accepted and connected to others."
you could use evidence from Fanning, Matt Fried, some of the internet sources Andy provided when we had to do the tattoo post, and from the Hair chapter in The Body Social.
I also think it would be helpful if you organized your arguments to easily include the evidence to the arguments.
This is a good start!
-Sandy
I got that your main idea was that we are puppets and we allow the idea of cool to control the way we present ourselves. I would rephrase this, as, we are puppets of coolness allowing it to control our presentation of self. I'm not sure if that is the best way to word your thesis, but is it another possible idea for you to work with.
We allow what we perceive as cool to control the way we identify ourselves to then apply that to how we present our character. We try to give off the right signals so people will see us in the way we want to be seen. For example, in the James Dean movie, Rebel Without a Cause, the main character was presented with what was cool at the beginning. Being ironic, making jokes, and presenting masculinity was cool to him. He allowed this perception of cool to control the way he began to act at his school. He sends off signals of cool and masculine by smoking cigarettes, and competing with the other cool masculine character. He sent off these signals because he wanted people to see him as a cool guy.
When you say "We do this to fill this emptiness in ourselves. Some sort of hole is created from our lives and to fill this we strive to make ourselves feel much better about ourselves." It might be interesting to include where this emptiness comes from to begin with.
I like the connection you made to the Fefe Dobson song but I think it would make your arument stronger if you analyzed the lyrics a little more and connected that back to your thesis.
Finally, just conclude everything and summarize all your arguments and maybe include some of your own final thoughts, you suggested I do that in my previous essay and I think it worked out pretty well so I think you should try it out too.
This is a good rough draft!
-Sandy
Omar- I would rewrite your thesis as: Cool is an unstoppable addiction to personal connections.
People seem to be so caught up in aggrandizing themeselves they are deluded by the real reason they try to make themselves look a certain way. Most people say "I do it because I like it" or "I do it for me" when people ask why they do something to present themselves a certain way. In reality, people aggrandize their self to send off signals and clues to allow people to see their identity. For examples, girls may swing their hips while they walk so people will see their feminity and understand clearly that that person is a girl. Whereas a boy might walk more stifly to express masculinity so people understand that the boy is a boy. People are so addicted and identified with their presentation of cool, the are deluded by the reality of their performance.
You have lots of great arguments but I think you just need to include some evidence to back up those arguements.
you say, "We go to great lengths and put ourselves through extreme circumstances to connect with others. We are willing to pierce our skin and have tattoos drawn on our skin. We are willing to dye our hair, burn our hair, wear fake hair just to impress and connect with others. We even have surgery to change our appearance so that we can feel more accepted and connected to others."
you could use evidence from Fanning, Matt Fried, some of the internet sources Andy provided when we had to do the tattoo post, and from the Hair chapter in The Body Social.
I also think it would be helpful if you organized your arguments to easily include the evidence to the arguments.
This is a good start!
-Sandy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)