English 101

Assignment #4, Final Draft

2011-12-02T14:22:00.000-08:00

In today’s society, we as people have grown up where getting a high school diploma, getting into a great college, and getting a degree has become the norm. However, more and more people are starting to think otherwise. In an article called, “The Case Against College,” Dale Stephens, age 19, is starting an “UnCollege” movement. Stephens argues that people should look at options other than going to college because it has become useless. More specifically, Stephens argues that schools have become too mundane and orthodox. He says, “The problem is that schools kill creativity.” Throughout his article, Stephens suggests that people should avoid going to college and create their own educational experience in the real world if possible. In short, Stephens’s belief is that college has become overrated because of today’s degree-saturated society, the cost, and the fact that it kills creativity.

In my opinion, Stephens does have some valid points in his argument. I believe that in today’s society, there are definitely a lot of people with degrees, making things more competitive and possibly making a degree mean less to employers. I also agree that attending college is very expensive if a person hasn’t received some sort of financial aid. Furthermore, I do think that while attending school, some creativity is killed. However, while I do believe some creativity is lost during school, I don’t really think it’s necessarily the schools killing creativity; I think it’s the way teachers are made to teach toward standardized tests, not a personal goal of the teachers. I also think that college is an experience where creativity can flourish due to many new people, opportunities, and curriculums. Therefore, I conclude that college is a very important and fundamental part of life and a person’s education that should not be avoided. Education is one thing that cannot be taken away in today’s harsh world.

Dale Stephens seems to argue that kids should avoid college because it kills creativity; however I feel that that the K-12 system kills creativity. To justify his statement, he pointed out that George Land and Beth Jarman ran a study, which had 1,500 kindergarteners take divergent thinking tests. Approximately 98 percent of the kids scored at the genius level. As they continued to go through school and age, fewer students had such high scores. Some used this study to justify the argument that schools kill creativity. However, I disagree. I think that the problem of killing creativity lies within the elementary and high school educational system. Many public schools compete for funding. Usually, the better the scores the school has and the better it looks on paper, the school gets more funding. This causes teachers to have to teach toward the tests. I feel that teachers have to worry about what their students look like on tests because it is supposed to reflect how the teachers are teaching. How are teachers supposed to incorporate their own creative ideas and projects into class when they are being indirectly tested themselves? It’s human nature to want to do anything to protect your own interests. Teachers have no choice but to make sure their students know the material by heart. It’s highly unfair for the government or anyone to judge a school simply by the grades the students are putting out on highly questionable tests anyway. The tests do not allow students to communicate their own ideas and information that they know. I feel they simply are reading tests. For every multiple choice question, you really need to understand what you are reading. A student may know the answer, but then get it wrong just for reading the question wrong. And from just recently taking the Regents for many subjects in school and the SATs for college, I know that the questions are very tricky. Not to mention, they cause a lot of anxiety in students. I think that kids have been raised in school to think, “If I don’t do well on this test, I’m not going to pass this class, I’m not going to get into a good college, and I’m not going to have a good life.” It’s a lot of pressure for kids, especially teenagers when they already dealing with a lot about themselves.

Many believe that the tests are important and really show what’s going on in a school, but, I think that standardized tests just need to be done away with. I know that it’s probably impossible for everyone to get rid of the tests because most believe scores are a strong indicator of how intelligent a student is. However, that is not the truth. These tests are highly subjective and aren’t really testing what they are supposed to. Approximately one-third of the colleges and universities in the United States are giving students the options to opt out of reporting their scores to the school. For example, DePaul University believes that students’ grades over the four years in high school are much better indicators of how well a student will do. Some students feel that the tests do not reflect how intelligent they are.

Contrary to Dale’s belief that unschooling will help stand out from the other 6.7 million people, I believe that smaller schools allow kids to flourish. I know I come from a small school and I highly believe that one solution for ensuring that kids have a better education is to have smaller schools. It’s impossible for each student to get individual attention they need when there are over 20 people in one class. For example, my own school, Colton-Pierrepont Central School is very small, with approximately 300 students K-12. Because of our small size, our teachers are able to teach us the information about the tests we will have to take, especially in the STEM subjects, but we also do many other creative activities as well that really allow us to excel. I know that my school offers languages, many electives, and a lot of AP and Honors courses. We have a sports program that attracts many people per year and also a strong arts and music program. We even have an elective seniors can take called Close Up, which requires students to not only learn about the government and its processes, but really learn about the current issues going on each year. The students are then able to take a trip to D.C. and meet with their representatives. It’s not only rewarding, but also lets students be heard. Not many large schools are able to do these things due to cost. My small school has also been deemed as one of America’s top schools. It is also a model school because we are very technologically advanced.

My group at the Close Up Academy at the White House meeting with NYS's representative.

Also, in the area where I live, there is a program called BOCES. The program allows students in high school to obtain a different kind of education. Students still are required to take core classes, but sometimes the classes are presented in different ways. The material is learned, but it may be through real-life experience. BOCES is able to offer education for things such as nursing, welding, criminal justice, and culinary arts. Not only do many students take this route in order to escape going to college, but they also become certified. This is only one way to avoid going to college, debt, and still have credentials and great references. BOCES also offers classes for adults looking to obtain some sort of degree or certification.

While Stephens feels that students are only getting themselves into major debt for a “piece of paper,” I believe a degree is very important in today’s world. Dale Stephens suggests that students today are going to college expecting to get a degree that will ensure them a job, but fail to do so. He thinks that the only thing they are really getting is debt and a “piece of paper.” He points out that each student graduates with approximately $24,000 at the end of his or her college career. Stephens is correct that college has become very expensive, especially if going to a private university and without any financial aid.

He thinks that students should avoid going to college if possible and instead look for jobs that require no degree at all or instead, go out on a limb and chase their own dreams. This may include starting up a business or doing something along those lines. He points out that college is not for everyone, but neither is not going to college. Each person is unique and requires different learning environments. However, I think that avoiding college is very risky, especially in today’s world. A college degree may not be something that every person in America feels that they need. However, it is practically proven today that without a degree, employers are usually going to go for the person who does have the degree. It provides credentials, ones that are necessary to get a job in today’s rough world. This may be blamed on the economy worsening. College may be expensive to some, but it’s also proven that people with a college degree usually earn more than those without a college degree. In fact, there is a $1,000,000 difference between the two. President Obama even urged Americans to obtain at least one year of higher education, no matter what type of schooling it was. This may be because America is lagging behind those in other countries, or it may be because he doesn’t want people to settle and he wants to create a better prepared work force. Truth be told, you’re just not competitive today if you don’t have a college degree. Unless you’re fortunate enough to strike it rich like Bill Gates, the probability of being a billionaire or even being that successful is very low. Stephens neglects the fact that not all of us are well-off enough to take big risks like starting our own businesses. Has he considered the rate at which small businesses fail or even the reasons why they do? The number one reason is that there isn’t enough capital. A study by the NBIA shows that 80% of small businesses fail within the first year. This may have something to do with the inequality of wealth in our country. This is a whole other debate, so I won’t get into it. But there are some very shocking statistics.

This video may be a bit long, but it is of a man who wrote a book, explaining the top reasons why small businesses fail today.

A figure showing the distribution of wealth in America.

I’m not sure people really know how much one credit hour can cost. It can range from around $90-$600 per credit hour depending on which school you attend. Many argue that students need this education because it produces a well-rounded person. However, don’t we go to school for 13 years being immersed in our language and history? I was valedictorian of my class and had around a 97 overall average. I did not receive a scholarship to my current school, UB. However, I did receive scholarships that I applied for. I also didn’t receive any financial aid because my parents make too much to qualify, but make too little to pay for my college. A lot of students are probably stuck in the same boat as I am. It can be really frustrating being forced to take classes that you are not interested in. I think that if students were allowed to choose which classes they would like to take, more people would be interested in going to college.

I’m not suggesting that people take ridiculous classes and get a medical degree or something, but I am suggesting that students have the opportunity to opt out of taking general education requirements unless it is truly necessary for their degree. It’s not only a waste of time and money, but it’s also hindering a person’s ability to do well in their other classes, which actually matter to their degree. Students would be able to not only cut down the time and cost it takes to get a degree, but actually be able to better focus on what they’re preparing themselves for. Students may also be able to take even more classes pertaining to their degree, giving them not only more experience, but more opportunities to expand their knowledge.

College is very important and should not be avoided. It’s not only important to get training and really learn what the occupation you’re choosing is about, but it’s also important for the country. Not only is America attracting many international students, but it’s also attracting many international employees that have better credentials and more experience. Education seems to be not taken as seriously as it should be in America. People like Dale Stephens suggest that schooling only inhibits people. While he does point out that unschooling is only right for some people, I still feel he is undermining education. I know that the educational system is frustrating at some points, but should we really avoid it or should be work to change it and allow it to evolve into something that will benefit every kind of learner? If it was a perfect world, we would all be able to do whatever the heck we wanted to do without worrying about money, a family, or any of the consequences. But the fact of the matter is, we cannot do that.

We need education, especially today. It is the one of the only things that a person can have for rest of his or her life. The bank can’t repossess what you have learned or your degree. They can repossess your business, your car, and all of your possessions. The solution to our educational issues is not to rid people of college or encourage them to find other ways of educating themselves. It’s to fix the system from within. Although traveling down the path less beaten is great for some, the simple fact is that it isn't right for everyone. Creativity will flourish, cost will decrease, and time will decline if we as students are able to pick and choose which classes we would like to take.

Dale Stephens makes valid points and does a great job at pointing out that there really are other options for students, but not going to college today doesn’t seem like a wise choice. A degree should be more to people than just a “piece of paper.” Stephens is a brave individual and he is the spark necessary to create an educational revolution. While I do not agree with everything that he says, I hope his passion for creating other options to learn will reach others and revolutionize the way our country views and engages in education.

Revision

2011-12-01T14:04:00.000-08:00

As I was reading the article written by Nancy Sommers, I was nodding my head in agreement with what she was saying. I feel like she expressed the differences correctly. However, I don't like revising. If I'm confident in something, then I don't like changing my paper. I feel like I do a better job when I'm not made to revise. I almost do it on my own. I don't necessarily make a first and second draft. I usually just keep reading my paper over and changing stuff around when I feel I have to. When I know I'm going to have to change things around, I don't think I try as hard to make my finished product my best. If it's my best, there's no changing it. In high school and even elementary school, we're made to do multiple drafts. It's annoying! I like receiving feedback from my teacher, but I don't like having to rewrite my whole paper. I guess in short, revising is different for every person. There's really no set way of doing it... it's unique to each writer.

Argument Templates

2011-11-30T18:53:00.000-08:00

The argument templates seemed to be pretty useful. They keep an argument neat and structured. They allow for a person to present different ideas while still allowing others to co-exist. I don't necessarily think they're condescending because some allow for points to be granted toward the other argument. I just think they're a more structured way of proving points and can lead to a better discussion.

Assignment #4, first draft

2011-11-17T07:04:00.000-08:00

IS COLLEGE WORTH IT?

In today’s society, we as people have grown up where getting a high school diploma, getting into a great college, and getting a degree has become the norm. However, more and more people are starting to think otherwise. In an article called, “The Case Against College,” Dale Stephens, age 19, is starting an “UnCollege” movement. Stephens argues that people should look at options other than going to college because it has become useless. More specifically, Stephens argues that schools have become too mundane and orthodox. He says, “The problem is that schools kill creativity.” Throughout his article, Stephens suggests that people should truly avoid going to college and create their own educational experience in the real world. In short, Stephens’s belief is that college has become overrated because of today’s degree-saturated society, the cost, and the fact that it kills creativity.

Dale Stephens seems to argue that kids should avoid college because it kills creativity. To justify his statement, he pointed out that George Land and Beth Jarman ran a study, which had 1,500 kindergarteners take divergent thinking tests. Approximately 98 percent of the kids scored at the genius level. As they continued to go through school and age, fewer students had such high scores. Some used this study to justify the argument that schools kill creativity. However, I disagree. I think that the problem of killing creativity lies within the elementary and high school educational system. Many public schools compete for funding. Usually, the better the scores the school has and the better it looks on paper, the school gets more funding. This causes teachers to have to teach toward the tests. I feel that teachers have to worry about what their students look like on tests because it is supposed to reflect how the teachers are teaching. How are teachers supposed to incorporate their own creative ideas and projects into class when they are being indirectly tested themselves? It’s human nature to want to do anything to protect your own interests. Teachers have no choice but to make sure their students know the material by heart. It’s highly unfair for the government or anyone to judge a school simply by the grades the students are putting out on highly questionable tests anyway. The tests do not allow students to communicate their own ideas and information that they know. I feel they simply are reading tests. For every multiple choice question, you really need to understand what you are reading. A student may know the answer, but then get it wrong just for reading the question wrong. And from just recently taking the Regents for many subjects in school and the SATs for college, I know that the questions are very tricky. Not to mention, they cause a lot of anxiety in students. I think that kids have been raised in school to think, “If I don’t do well on this test, I’m not going to pass this class, I’m not going to get into a good college, and I’m not going to have a good life.” It’s a lot of pressure for kids, especially teenagers when they already dealing with a lot about themselves. However, the standardized testing is only one part of the problem.

I know I come from a small school and I highly believe that one solution for ensuring that kids have a better education is to have smaller schools. It’s impossible for each student to get individual attention they need when there are over 20 people in one class. For example, my own school, Colton-Pierrepont Central School is very small, with approximately 300 students K-12. Because of our small size, our teachers are able to teach us the information about the tests we will have to take, especially in the STEM subjects, but we also do many other creative activities as well that really allow us to excel. I know that my school offers languages, many electives, and a lot of AP and Honors courses. We have a sports program that attracts many people per year and also a strong arts and music program. We even have an elective seniors can take called Close Up, which requires students to not only learn about the government and its processes, but really learn about the current issues going on each year. The students are then able to take a trip to D.C. and meet with their representatives. It’s not only rewarding, but also lets students be heard. Not many large schools are able to do these things. My small school has also been deemed as one of America’s top schools. It is also a model school because we are very technologically advanced.

My group at Close Up meeting with our representative in the White House.

I also think that standardized tests just need to be done away with. I know that it’s probably impossible for everyone to get rid of the tests because most believe scores are a strong indicator of how intelligent a student is. However, that is not the truth. These tests are highly subjective and aren’t really testing what they are supposed to. Approximately one-third of the colleges and universities in the United States are giving students the options to opt out of reporting their scores to the school. For example, DePaul University believes that students’ grades over the four years in high school are much better indicators of how well a student will do. Some students feel that the tests do not reflect how intelligent they are.

Next, Dale Stephens suggests that students today are going to college expecting to get a degree that will ensure them a job, but fail to do so. He thinks that the only thing they are really getting is debt. He points out that each student graduates with approximately $24,000 at the end of his or her college career. Stephens is correct that college has become very expensive, especially if going to a private university and without any financial aid.

He thinks that students should avoid going to college and instead look for jobs that require no degree at all or instead, go out on a limb and chase their own dreams. This may include starting up a business or doing something along those lines. However, I think that avoiding college is very risky, especially in today’s world. A college degree may not be something that every person in America feels that they need. However, it is practically proven today that without a degree, employers are usually going to go for the person who does have the degree. It provides credentials, ones that are necessary to get a job in today’s rough world. This may be blamed on the economy worsening. College may be expensive to some, but it’s also proven that people with a college degree usually earn more than those without a college degree. In fact, there is a $1,000,000 difference between the two. President Obama even urged Americans to obtain at least one year of higher education, no matter what type of schooling it was. This may be because America is lagging behind those in other countries, or it may be because he doesn’t want people to settle and he wants to create a better prepared work force. Truth be told, you’re just not competitive today if you don’t have a college degree. Unless you’re fortunate enough to strike it rich like Bill Gates, the probability of being a billionaire or even being that successful is very low. Stephens neglects the fact that not all of us are well-off enough to take big risks like starting our own businesses. Has he considered the rate at which small businesses fail or even the reasons why they do? The number one reason is that there isn’t enough capital. A study by the NBIA shows that 80% of small businesses fail within the first year. This may have something to do with the inequality of wealth in our country. This is a whole other debate, so I won’t get into it. But there are some very shocking statistics.

This video may be a little bit long, but it is about a book written by the man in the video, listing the reasons why businesses fail.

Statistics of distribution of wealth in today's economy.

I highly doubt we will be able to change the distribution of wealth throughout our country even if it would help allow more students to afford college. We can thank the wonderful Republicans for that. ;-) However, I do have a solution to making it less costly and more worth a student’s while. Many students go to college and are required to take general education classes. For example, I am going to school to get my four-year degree in the science of nursing. I then hope to attend graduate school to study nursing anesthesiology. This whole plan is probably going to make me approximately seven years of schooling. It probably would only take me about five years if I was able to skip the general education requirements at UB. I have to take English and World Civ, both for two semesters, and I also have to take a class introducing me to the university. Not only are these classes costing me more money, but they’re also wasting my time. I’m not interested in English or World Civ, or University Experience. I’m interested in taking nursing classes that are going to help me get a degree. I would have had to take many more general education classes if it weren’t for me taking AP courses in my high school career. Many students are required to take these if they don’t already have credit from high school or another institution. I’m not sure people really know how much one credit hour can cost. It can range from around $90-$600 per credit hour depending on which school you attend. Many argue that students need this education because it produces a well-rounded person. However, don’t we go to school for 13 years being immersed in our language and history? I was valedictorian of my class and had around a 97 overall average. I did not receive a scholarship to my current school, UB. However, I did receive scholarships that I applied for. I also didn’t receive any financial aid because my parents make too much to qualify, but make too little to pay for my college. A lot of students are probably stuck in the same boat as I am. It can be really frustrating being forced to take classes that you are not interested in. I think that if students were allowed to choose which classes they would like to take, more people would be interested in going to college. I’m not suggesting that people take ridiculous classes and get a medical degree or something, but I am suggesting that students have the opportunity to opt out of taking general education requirements unless it is truly necessary for their degree. It’s not only a waste of time and money, but it’s also hindering a person’s ability to do well in their other classes, which actually matter to their degree. Students would be able to not only cut down the time and cost it takes to get a degree, but actually be able to better focus on what they’re preparing themselves for. Students may also be able to take even more classes pertaining to their degree, giving them not only more experience, but more opportunities to expand their knowledge.

College is very important and should not be avoided. It’s not only important to get training and really learn what the occupation you’re choosing is about, but it’s also important for the country. Not only is America attracting many international students, but it’s also attracting many international employees that have better credentials and more experience. Education seems to be not taken as seriously as it should be in America. People like Dale Stephens suggest that schooling only inhibits people. If it was a perfect world, we would all be able to do whatever the heck we wanted to do without worrying about money, a family, or any of the consequences. But the fact of the matter is, we cannot do that. We need education, especially today. It is the ONLY thing that a person can have for rest of his or her life. The bank can’t repossess what you have learned or your degree. They can repossess your business, you car, your car, and all of your possessions. The solution to our educational issues is not to rid people of college. It’s to fix the system from within. Creativity will flourish, cost will decrease, and time will decline if we as students are able to pick and choose which classes we would like to take. Dale Stephens makes valid points, but not going to college is surely not the right solution. All I have to say to Dale Stephens and his followers is, "Good luck, you'll need it!"

Ideas for Assignment #4

2011-11-09T05:50:00.000-08:00

I'm thinking I really want to do something about schools killing creativity. However, because we're not supposed to do SKR, I think I could incorporate Dale Stephens into my idea because it'd be really easy to talk about debt and stuff like that.

But anyway. My personal feelings about schools killing creativity is that they really don't. It's not really their fault. I think it mainly has to do with the state, particularly dealing with NY. I think that teachers are forced to teach toward the tests in all grades. Standardized testing is what results in teachers being unable to incorporate new ideas and new material into their curriculum. Some students don't do well because it lacks the creativity. And then you have some teachers who DO try to incorporate interesting things, but get reprimanded or don't get the results on tests and therefore get into trouble or something like that. I think if we did away with standardized testing, we'd have a much better educational system. Tests aren't really a good way to see how much people know simply because some people just aren't good test takers. It's too much pressure and it creates these ridiculous standards for students to live up to. There's more, but it's time for Anatomy!

Argument Template

2011-11-08T15:25:00.000-08:00

The general argument made by Dale Stephens in his work, "The Case Against College," is that people should not go to college because it is practically useless in today's society and also creates a large debt. More specifically, Stephens argues that college kills creativity. He writes, "The problem is that schools kill creativity." In this passage, Stephens is suggesting that people should avoid going to college and should create their own educational experience in the real world. In conclusion, Stephens's belief is that college has become overrated because of today's degree-saturated society, the cost, and the fact that it kills creativity.

In my view, Stephens has valid points to his argument. I believe that in today's society, there are definitely a lot of people with degrees, making things more competitive and possibly making a degree mean less. However, I believe that high schools may kill creativity because of standardized testing and the need for teachers to teach towards the test, but I think college allows creativity to flourish because of the many opportunities that it presents to each individual. Although Stephens might object that college is a creative time in a person's life, I maintain that it rejuvenates people's creativity that is lost in high school. Therefore, I conclude that college is a very important and fundamental part of life and it should not be avoided. Education is one thing that cannot be lost or taken away.

The World

2011-10-25T11:48:00.000-07:00

I know this isn't about English, but it's something that hits close to home with me.

Yesterday, my brother's girlfriend's 12-year-old cousin was killed. Not in an accident and definitely not by natural causes. He was beaten to death by an adult. Things like this make me wonder and really question the existence of a God. Honestly, I haven't believed in one since my brother's accident. I don't understand why bad things happen to good people. My brother was only 22 and ended up paralyzed and in a wheelchair, forced to deal with so many problems. If that wasn't enough, three months later, his best friend Shane was killed in a car accident. Not on impact, but he suffered a slow and painful death. He burned alive. Shane left behind a newborn, Gage, who has become part of my family. Awful things happen in this world every single day and I'm really starting to wonder why. I honestly think that the whole idea of a god was created in order to explain events that can't really be explained and to offer a sense of comfort. Some things just shouldn't happen.

Genre

2011-10-19T11:27:00.000-07:00

Honestly, there's a ton of different genres. I found this link http://www.education.com/reference/article/writing-genres/?page=2 to be somewhat useful. It only lists the main types that are used by some students, but I liked it.

I'm not really sure what type of genre I want to do for the next assignment. I don't really like creative writing, so I don't really want to make up a story. I think I want to do a narrative... possibly about myself growing up and learning, but I'll probably make it a bit more interesting. I think my assignment is going to be in response to Sir Ken Robinson's take on education... possibly. There are a lot of different things I could do, so who knows. But, I think telling a story about my own life and how it applies to SKR might be a bit more my style rather than creating a fairytale or something like that.

Essentialism

2011-10-17T18:28:00.000-07:00

Essentialism is defined as "a belief that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they are, and that the task of science and philosophy is their discovery and expression; the doctrine that essence is prior to existence." In general, things or groups have certain properties that are universal throughout. Each group has its own standards or expectations... which may be a weird way to say it. I think what I'm trying to say is that groups of people look at other groups and establish their own properties or expectations of what that group of people is like... if that makes sense. While essentialism can be interesting, it seems that it lacks the idea that each person is unique and can contribute distinct characteristics that make up the group as a whole. Each person of that group may share commonalities, but they also possess individual and unique characteristics. I think it is unfair to assume that a person belonging to a particular group is exactly the same. A common misconception is that all lawyers are money-hungry jerks or sharks. Essentialism allows each type of lawyer to be stereotyped as a jerk. However, not all are heartless and there are many different types that actually defend people like immigrants of victims... Regardless, my whole point is that society has formed these ideas that a person is supposed to possess qualities and act a certain way to belong to a group. It seems that it does not take into account that experience, values, and judgement make up a person... interests, morals... there's tons of things that make up who a person is. Essentialism lacks life. It's like saying that all Democrats agree with Obama and hate all of the Republicans... It's not true. Each person has their own unique ideas which are formed from their own experiences and many other characteristics which make up who they are. Essentialism causes us to forget that each person has something to offer regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or any of the other distinguishing characteristics people are categorized by.

Assignment #2

2011-09-26T13:47:00.000-07:00

"They cast the dignity of man from their downtrod selves upon the shoulders of a hero, and will perish to add one drop of blood to make that great heart beat, those giant sinews combat and conquer” -- Emerson, The American Scholar

They - people ---> scholars, ordinary

Hero - scholars, God, some type of leader

drop of blood - literal meaning, discovery, idea, contribution

great heart, sinews - humanity, society

combat and conquer - What is being combatted and conquered? ---> life's challenges - still vague

Close Reading

2011-09-21T11:58:00.000-07:00

Close reading, according to Patricia Kain, is when "you observe facts and details about the text." So, when reading something that may seem like it is very clear, it might be a good idea to really look into the words the author has written. There may be alternate meanings to any text.

According to a Partners In Learning, there are four main components of close reading. They include, "understanding your purpose in reading, understanding the author's purpose in readings, seeing ideas in a text as being interconnected, and looking for and understanding systems of meaning."

Close reading is more than understanding the words on the page. It requires a reader to actually do some intellectual work. A reader must be reflective. That is, he or she must be able to connect new and old ideas while being open to new ways of thinking. Not everything is straightforward.

A reader should also be able to challenge a text. This can be done by annotating the reading. This helps not only figure out what the author is trying to say, but it also helps a reader answer their own questions about the text. Annotating helps point out specific areas of interest to the reader, possibly ones which could be explored a bit more in depth.

Close reading also helps understand how language is used. It causes a reader to pay attention to what is actually being said. The reader can pick up on the author's "literary techniques and rhetorical devices."This can be done by asking questions. We all know literary terms like mood, tone, and metaphor. Take the information you already know and use it. Ask yourself how each term is expressed, if at all, in the author's writing.

Close reading can not only help a reader understand the author more, but it can also provide a more interesting meaning to a simple text.

Sources:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/CloseReading.html

http://performancepyramid.muohio.edu/pyramid/adolescent-education/Reading-Intervention-Strategies/Close-Reading.html

Educational Differences

2011-09-14T14:03:00.000-07:00

So, I just wanted to finish the writing task we were given in class. I'm not entirely sure if we're supposed to take a different approach to writing about ourselves in a different time period, but I'm going to anyway.

To give background about my own education, I was always in accelerated classes and stood out. I really liked learning, reading, and all of the stuff that comes with school. For some reason, I just got it. I turned out to be at the top of my class since averages were actually recorded. This resulted in my being valedictorian of my graduating class and having some lofty goals. Gillian Lynne was much different than me because she needed to learn in a different way whereas I liked the way I learned in school. However, things probably would have been different for me in her time period.

During the early to mid 1900s, women were starting to be exposed to more educational opportunities than just taking care of the home, being a mother, and a wife. Many influential women would have already accomplished many goals such as winning the Nobel Peace Prize and flying solo across the Atlantic. These women helped other girls realize that there was a greater cause than what society had drilled into their heads.

I feel like I still would have loved to learn and also would have loved to compete for the top spot against guys. I'm not sure if I would have realized what education would do for me in my future, though. Because I'm from a middle class family, I think that I probably would have either strived to be recognized in order to receive a scholarship or settled for something less than what I wanted. Today I have a goal of becoming a nurse anesthetist. Back then, I'm not sure what I would have done. I feel like I would have been shoved into being a teacher or just a regular nurse when it came time to decide. I would have enjoyed studying both subjects if I received the chance to attend and receive a college education during the period of time. I don't really have anything that would make people focus on me other than determination, so I can't say that my world today would be much different than my world back then educationally speaking.

The Khan Academy

2011-09-14T13:50:00.000-07:00

The Khan Academy is brilliant in my opinion. It's not only beneficial to children, but beneficial to anyone wanting to understand a topic. I know that my chemistry teacher used videos in class to help us grasp a subject. I think that videos can present the same information in a different way than a textbook or a real teacher can. I also think that with today's technology, Khan has developed a progressive way of teaching.

I particularly like the fact that a couple teachers have been able to "flip" their classrooms. Lectures are assigned to watch for homework, and homework is done in class. I feel like this is brilliant. People sit through lectures and listen, but don't have something to apply what they're learning to . When people actually do go apply what they've learned, it's often more difficult. Helpings kids through homework is definitely more beneficial than drilling information into their heads during class and having them bring back homework that has problems.

The Khan Academy is obviously a progressive teaching style. It offers a way to pinpoint specific needs of students through use of a dashboard. It's almost as if teaching is one-to-one. I also like the fact that the site makes sure there is an understand of each level before a student can move on to something more difficult. It allows students to move at their own pace and also allows teachers to specifically help out students needing it.

Overall, I think that there are many critics of this, but there will always be critics of a good change. I think this should be adopted into more schools able to provide the use of technology. I would also love to see Khan start a private school and see how the students actually turn out. I think he's onto a really good thing, something which should be more deeply explored and implemented.

Sir Ken Robinson

2011-09-12T10:24:00.000-07:00

Sir Ken Robinson brings up a lot of great points. I strongly agree with most everything that he says. I feel that our education system has been focused on drilling information into the heads of children and young adults in a primitive way. It's completely forgotten that we're in a changing period of time. We have new technology and we also have a lot more distractions. ADHD has been used to not help children focus, but to quell differences. Not every person learns the same way, which is apparent in SKR's story of the dancer. There needs to be diversity in the classroom. I also think that there needs to be new methods of teaching. Possibly, schools will consider combing some subjects in order to build from one another. I know that I'm taking Anatomy and Psychology, both of which deal with one another. While I was studying for my Psych test on tuesday, I was reading about parts of the brain and what their functions are. I will (hopefully) retain that information to use in Anatomy. The point of that is, the subjects are helping me learn one another. Schools should consider doing this to not only make things more interesting, but to show the connection subjects have with each other.

I'm not entirely educated enough about other education systems in different countries, but I do know that when SKR says that there is a hierarchy of subjects, he is right. I was never really into singing, dancing, acting, or any of that. However, some of my close friends were and I did watch them struggle in regular classes. It turns out that one of my friends is actually going to school for music therapy. Her classes tend to avoid a lot of classes I'm taking. She has yoga and meditation as classes. I must say, I'm a little jealous.

To bring this to a close, I really appreciate being in college. It's kind of a more advanced high school right now, but I'm able to study subjects which interest me. I'm getting more science than anything, which I love. I think that public schools should consider offering more options and not trying to force students down one path. There should be workshops, internships, job shadows.. stuff like that! I was valedictorian of my class; Not because I was the smartest kid in my grade, but because I knew how to work the system. I knew how they wanted me to act. I'm not saying I didn't work really hard to get where I was because I did work really, really hard, but I forced myself to because I knew it was what I was supposed to do. I didn't like every subject I took in high school, but I made myself excel in each. I love learning and gaining more insight through knowledge, but if I had the chance to, I would have focused my education on what I want to spend my life doing and what interested me.

P.S. I was looking at more videos of SKR on youtube and I saw one of the comments had an interesting quote from Einstein: "Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it's going to spend its whole life believing it's an idiot."

"Life is our dictionary."

2011-09-05T08:22:00.000-07:00

In "The American Scholar" Emerson expresses his views on education at the present time. He expresses his concern of having Americans rely on others too much for new information. In fact, he feels that new information almost ceases to exist. It seems as if he feels that Americans rely on the past only, and have almost lost the initiative and will to progress and find their own truth and meaning.

I think all Americans hope that there will, one day, be a time where we do not have to rely on others for resources, technologies, or new information. Americans, by nature, seem to want to be the leader of the pack. I feel that Emerson would hold onto this belief. He would insist that Americans use their own brains to propel the country to the top. Although we are a leader, we do not possess the greatest methods of education, most knowledgable scientists, or most intellectual thinkers. We are a leader, but not at the head of the pack. I think Emerson would urge Americans to renew their own interests in education, truth, and progression.

Emerson stresses that each person in an individual. He points that that each person is capable of creating new ideas, finding new truths, and bringing a new light onto a situation. Each person has different responsibilities and interests, but that's the beauty of it. Each person can contribute something new, even if only slightly different from another. But, he also points out that not only one person possesses all knowledge or truth or power. All people must be open about their information and thoughts. Sharing information is key to progression. Today, Emerson may point out that people are selfish. People are concerned too much with money and power. He may even point out that the selfishness of our people has hindered our own country's development.

I feel that Emerson would stress expression. He may even congratulate the invention of such things as the Internet or social networks. These make sharing information much easier than before. However, he might also find this as a hindrance because people may rely too much on the thoughts of others, never creating their own. Media may be seen as a method of control for the wrong people. People are influenced by society, but should be constantly learning for themselves, which brings up the next point of Emerson's.

He points out that books are for idle times. While books are great tools at some points, they can be abused. Today, students tend to find the easy way out. They copy other's words, use the Internet to find meanings of things, and almost shut their own brains off in order to get things done. College and school to some have become a stepping stone to future riches and power. Emerson may be disappointed in our youth because they seem to not be as motivated as they should be. Cuts are constantly being made to our educational system. The important things in our country, such as education, is falling behind in importance to things such as wealth and power. Because of the forgotten importance, our own country is falling behind that of others when we used to be a very influential leader. We are setting our own people up for failure.

There should be a constant cycle. Knowledge exists in books, but that knowledge should be taken in, and used as a foundation. A person should never accept another's thoughts solely as their own. There should be a constant questioning occurring. Everything is tied together and influenced by one another, but it's the scholar's responsibility to realize when to think for himself, when to build from the past. The past's findings may not fit the present's or future's needs. A generation must find their own truths. Young people may not realize their importance in the cycle. They are the ones who have a chance to bring forth new information and new findings. Any information or knowledge may feed the human mind.

I feel that Emerson would think that laziness has overcome the nation. We have problems that exist that could have easy solutions if people would put their minds to it. We care more about relationships with other countries than we do our own citizens. Our Congress has ruined a presidency that could have soared due a struggle of power. We have people stuck in the past, unwilling to move forward. I feel like Emerson would point out that it is our leaders' duty to inspire their people, to provide initiative. The same could go for schools and colleges. Students need to be motivated, maybe need to be shown the true meaning of knowledge and truth. Some people love to learn, but not to think freely. Some people just like to immerse themselves in information that is accepted and already known.

While some people just complete high school and go to college because it's supposed to happen, some people really do want to find the cure for cancer, solve global warming, fix our economy, and be innovators.

Emerson says, "Life is our dictionary." Emerson would encourage people to learn from life. We have many instances in the past that we may learn from. Only our own experiences truly define the meaning of life. Emerson would encourage our citizens today to go out and live life.

John Bean

2011-09-05T06:41:00.000-07:00

John Bean has a few good points throughout the parts of his article we received in class. However, I disagree with him on a couple of occasions.

I mostly agree that "when experts read difficult texts, they read slowly and reread often." Because I took AP classes in high school, particularly history, I read a ton of readings that were primary sources and scholarly articles dealing with different subjects throughout history. I had to be prepared to debate and sometimes even write about the meanings and subjects of each item I read. I had no choice but to learn how to break down difficult texts. Language can be very difficult. Words, when put together in a sentence, can mean very different things to each person. Rereading the whole thing, I never did. But, I did reread certain parts that were difficult for me to understand so I could attempt to get the true meaning of the reading. I don't feel that a person is an inexperienced reader because they don't write in the margins or reread the article numerous times. For some people, it's easier to highlight passages that may be difficult and go back to them later. Reading through the entire article, for me, seems to bring the passage together. I don't focus on one part for too long because I may erase my confusion later on with another passage.

I do disagree with Bean when he says, "Unlike experts, inexperienced readers are less apt to chunk complex material into discrete parts with describable functions." Sometimes, readers need to enjoy the text before they dissect it. Looking too much into everything may ruin the text altogether. I don't read through a book or an article saying "This sentence does this. This sentence implies that." It's nearly impossible to know the meaning of another person's thoughts or words unless they are directly written out.

Also, I do agree that many people do highlight randomly. Sometimes, it's very hard to determine which parts are important and which parts aren't. Even after saying that, I'm almost going to contradict myself, because it's almost unfair to say people highlight too much as they read. No one knows what it is important to another person and what's not.

I strongly disagree Bean's perspective of students knowing the perspective of a reading. Many people now think that students don't really care about what's going on in the world or recognizing influences in the media. While this may be partly true, a lot of students do care about what's happening. Sometimes, people just haven't been taught to distinguish perspectives and biases. Being ignorant may not be their fault. Bean acts like an expert is supposed to know every author and know his or her perspective, background, and bias. People create new writings every single day. It's impossible to know every author's style. Bean frustrates me because he's almost degrading students. We're called students because we need to learn. I do think that students need to accept responsibility for improving their own skills, but while paying money to go to school or university, I also believe that teachers, professors, or instructors are responsible for helping those students along and allowing them to grow. Most students are willing to progress.

Playing devil's advocate is strongly recommended. It not only prepares you for debate, but also helps you discover your own view of the issue. Being two people while reading a text may allow situations and questions rise that never would have if reading as one person.

The only part of Bean's article I completely agree with is "translate difficult passages into your own words." Students encounter different styles, words, and perspectives in every reading. The only way to truly understand what's going on, is to try to put it into your own words. See how it applies to today's world. Compare and contrast.

A person is not inexperienced because he or she has difficulty reading certain types of texts. I read many books each year on different things, but I still have trouble understanding what people are trying to say. I've read a ton ever since I was able to, but I am not an expert. I know that even reading simple writings have helped me understand more complex texts. I think it's easier to start small and acquire a foundation to build from.

The American Scholar: Part 1

2011-08-31T14:01:00.000-07:00

While Emerson's style of writing seems very poetic and insightful, it is somewhat difficult to read. There are many passages that can take on multiple meanings, but one in particular stood out to me. I will admit it is not the most difficult passage to dissect and assign a meaning to, but I find it to be of some interest.

Emerson wrote, "But when the intervals of darkness come, as come they must,--when the sun is hid, and the stars withdraw their shining, --we repair to the lamps which were kindled by their ray, to guide our steps to the East again, where the dawn is."

I think "intervals of darkness" could refer to a number of things. It could be taken literally and really just mean darkness or nighttime, but I don't feel that is the true definition. It could also mean depression, seclusion, or possibly be a standstill. Given the context this passage is surrounded by, it seems as if "intervals of darkness" is referring to a standstill in one's education, thoughts, personal growth, or even progression in educational methods.

Next, the sun is seen as not only a natural beauty, but also a source of life for practically every living thing on our planet. When Emerson uses "when the sun is hid," I think that he is using the sun to refer to brilliance, intelligence, educational progression, personal growth... or something along those lines.

I find it interesting that he says "the sun is hid," which he follows with "and the stars withdraw their shining." It could be just Emerson's style, but the simple word "is" may imply that something or someone has taken away the sun - or whatever the sun stands for. That small word can completely change the meaning of the passage. It could refer to the time period or reputation of scholarly individuals. Emerson explains that during the era, men who chose to become educated and immerse themselves into information were not considered "real men." The social stigma during that period of time may have caused interest to recede.

I think that when Emerson writes "and the stars withdraw their shining," he could be referring to individuals who possibly stand out or are truly dedicated to education that decided to hide their own interests or findings. He could be referring to leaders, too, who have decided to cut back on motivating others or have decreased the importance of advancing educationally, intellectually, personally, etc.

Emerson also writes, "we repair to the lamps which were kindled by their ray." I think the word "we" is referring to scholars, people following education progression, or it could be a group of everyday ordinary people. I also feel like "repair" is an odd word to use here. It seems that instead of its literal meaning, repair seems to take on the meaning of rely or fall back on. I feel like "lamps" could refer to intellectual products such as stories, novels, speeches, theories, writings, etc. This seems to be a possible meaning because of the fact that lamps is followed by "which were kindled by their ray." This particular part of the passage may refer to the "stars" who have helped people progress. When they stop, their previous findings or advances (lamps) - whatever they are - are left behind for people to study, immerse themselves in, or branch off of. The leaders in education, free thought, exploration - have left their own knowledge for others to discover.

Emerson's last part of this passage, "to guide our steps to the East again, where the dawn is," seems as if it suggests that people will never be shut off from learning, that there will always be someone or something that will lead them to progress and grow. I think he uses "East" in this particular part because the sun rises in the East. If he truly refers to the sun as progression, brilliance, intellect, etc., Emerson is almost saying that even though there will be stagnant times, progression will never cease to exist.

While this is quite lengthy and a bit wordy, I feel that Emerson is ultimately trying to say... Although there will be times with little progress, we may look to previous scholars to learn from their findings and thoughts to develop our own novel and fresh ideas for the future. Learning will never be quelled.