Feeling helpless is a state that at one point we all felt. Regardless of our surroundings and our circumstances that sense of feeling is mutual. Something I found so intriguing about "Babies" was the tie and connection between all of the lives being documented. We don't think about people on the other side of the world and how close we actually are to them.
The interesting thing about parenting is that although parents choose to raise their children in different ways, in the end of it all most of the results are quite similar. The two western civilizations focused on in the movie; America & Japan seemed to be extremely alike, by this I mean that both of the families decided to raise their children with a guided structure. While the two other babies who lived in Mongolia & Namibia were much more on their own to discover. Instead of going to baby classes and trying to understand the world around them through books and television, the babies from the third world countries were experiencing all of the world first hand. This then relates to the parents from the western cultures trying to develop their children faster, while in my opinion the other two babies seemed to become much more independent in a shorter amount of time.
The opening scene of the movie was quite eye opening, these two very young babies from Namibia were working as if they were at least 10 years old. The baby from Mongolia acted quite resourceful and well developed very quickly. While the baby from Tokyo in one scene was very frustrated when she couldn't figure out how one of her toys worked. Instead of trying to help herself and solve her problem she threw a tantrum. The baby from San Francisco constantly seemed to get upset if she didn't get her way. Does this mean that if we have more access to constant attention we are more prone to developing slower? While babies exposed to less attention are more likely to find themselves and help themselves?
As all the babies started to learn to walk, all three of the babies besides the one from Mongolia were being watched very closely. What I found so beautiful about the film was how at the end the baby from Mongolia stood up on his own in the middle of a empty field and the look on his face seemed so proud. Although his parents didn't write down the day he took his first steps, as many western civilizations have the habit of doing, that moment would never be forgotten. I found it to be much more meaningful and natural. As a person who hopes to have babies one day, I would rather raise my child more like the babies of Mongolia and Namibia, their ways of parenting seem to result in very down to earth babies, who are ready to take on any challenge the world gives them.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Extra Credit - You the Man
Personally I found the discussion afterwards to be a bit more interesting than the play itself. Although I enjoyed the play I thought it was a bit confusing to keep track of which character was which but also how would it be different if the play was told from a woman's perspective. However good points were made about the different kind of people who float around in this world. I think at one point or another everyone can either relate to one or more of the characters.
Generally speaking it seems as if even though the phrase, “if you see something, say something” is constantly circulating our minds, we don’t necessarily listen. I think especially as a teenager when something is bad or looks bad we convince ourselves that it is cool. Then whatever we are doing or we are watching someone else do shows strength of going against our parents, and not listening to the rules. Is this right though? If we use this strategy of assessing situations, then when someone is in danger it’ll appear to us as cool verses a problem.
Where is the line drawn between what is right and what is wrong? When it comes to domestic violence I think sometimes it is hard to differentiate. I think especially at this age when there is already a ton of experimenting going on people sometimes don’t realize the actual situation in till it is already happened. Then at this point question whether they need to get help from someone older. It seems as if from the play getting help and admitting to being in danger is a lot harder than it seems.
It was very interesting being able to talk with the freshman girls after the performance. I know that when I was a freshman my intake on a performance like this would have been very different. To be able to get their census of how they personally responded to a subject like this shows how age can give one a different reaction.
Two of the characters we focused on were Virgin Larry and the father. We talked about how the hierarchy of high school reflects the dominance and leadership of individuals. People would be more likely to listen to the captain of the basketball team then a character who had little experience in the subject and wasn’t as respected. However, the father seemed very protective of his daughter, and didn’t want her to start leading a life down the wrong road. We questioned though if it was his son in his daughters position would he react differently?
We discussed if it was harder being a male or a female growing up in our society. I picked that it would be harder for a female. I think there is a lot more pressure to have a sex appeal, and to life up to the celebrities images. Also being though, girls are much more targeted by both males our age and older males. I think this has a lot to do with men being considered more dominant and powerful. I do not agree that, that is right but in history and even now it seems as if men do take that role on.
This is going to be very generalized but I think most girls have a good sense of what’s going on around them. I think we are more observant and notice details. So even though we are more vulnerable at the same time we are well aware of this. Information gained from the play was interesting though, I guess you just have to be conscious of our surroundings since he did say most people who experience domestic violence know the person doing it.
Generally speaking it seems as if even though the phrase, “if you see something, say something” is constantly circulating our minds, we don’t necessarily listen. I think especially as a teenager when something is bad or looks bad we convince ourselves that it is cool. Then whatever we are doing or we are watching someone else do shows strength of going against our parents, and not listening to the rules. Is this right though? If we use this strategy of assessing situations, then when someone is in danger it’ll appear to us as cool verses a problem.
Where is the line drawn between what is right and what is wrong? When it comes to domestic violence I think sometimes it is hard to differentiate. I think especially at this age when there is already a ton of experimenting going on people sometimes don’t realize the actual situation in till it is already happened. Then at this point question whether they need to get help from someone older. It seems as if from the play getting help and admitting to being in danger is a lot harder than it seems.
It was very interesting being able to talk with the freshman girls after the performance. I know that when I was a freshman my intake on a performance like this would have been very different. To be able to get their census of how they personally responded to a subject like this shows how age can give one a different reaction.
Two of the characters we focused on were Virgin Larry and the father. We talked about how the hierarchy of high school reflects the dominance and leadership of individuals. People would be more likely to listen to the captain of the basketball team then a character who had little experience in the subject and wasn’t as respected. However, the father seemed very protective of his daughter, and didn’t want her to start leading a life down the wrong road. We questioned though if it was his son in his daughters position would he react differently?
We discussed if it was harder being a male or a female growing up in our society. I picked that it would be harder for a female. I think there is a lot more pressure to have a sex appeal, and to life up to the celebrities images. Also being though, girls are much more targeted by both males our age and older males. I think this has a lot to do with men being considered more dominant and powerful. I do not agree that, that is right but in history and even now it seems as if men do take that role on.
This is going to be very generalized but I think most girls have a good sense of what’s going on around them. I think we are more observant and notice details. So even though we are more vulnerable at the same time we are well aware of this. Information gained from the play was interesting though, I guess you just have to be conscious of our surroundings since he did say most people who experience domestic violence know the person doing it.
Monday, May 24, 2010
HW 58
Part Three:
Brathawate (Sorry if I mispelled her name): "You may raise you're child a certain way but once they get to school it's another story... breast feeding is bonding... The book sucks, each child is different... This is my child, I'm gonna do it my way."
Rob: "My family is set in tradition but progressive... We have a different household, two dads... My family was afraid of the unknown... read books on parenting... I use time out."
Mom: "Combination of instinct, intuition and education... I read a couple of books... in some cases they were helpful but talking to other parents was more helpful... I think some of your characteristics are/were innate but I think those can be enhanced by your up bring."
For all three parents they all made the choice to read the books however it didn't seem like they were of much use. Like I said before though, think of it like preparing for a test, instead of studying one thing you should prepare for all aspects of the subject. Furthermore you could end up with the child who fits exactly what the book is saying. If you walked into a room with no further knowledge of what you were going to be asked to do you would feel helpless. Besides which its not like the baby is going to be an expert, you have to use the technique of guess and check in till you get the picture.
Another tie between all three parents is their maternal instincts kick in. I believe this is due to the fact that while you grow up repetition is what gets the message across. Parents take that repetition and either jumble it up or continue repeating it to raise their own. I also believe as much as we want to deny the fact that when we get older our ways of parenting will be completely opposite to the ones used on us, we will subconsciously repeat history in certain ways.
Part Four:
After Rob left our classroom, I thought to myself I want to adopt a baby when I'm old enough. The way he put it was so beautiful, with the mother practically handing her newborn into the arms of complete strangers. The fact that she hardly knew them but had so much trust for them after only a few minutes was remarkable. I would like to have my children that are my own as well but I think it would be a very interesting experience embracing another human being into my home. Regardless if the baby came from you or someone else its still your baby, and all three parents interviewed seemed proud to be able to say that. I am sure that type of feeling is one of the most rewarding you get could from parenting.
A lot of the units have had a tie in with my internship... Since I work with children that are of the ages of 2-3 I see the wide variety between them. They already all have personalities and attitudes. Watching them play is a learning experience in it self, I am practically seeing what my future could possibly hold. Not one of the children are alike, thats a aspect that as I'm sure is quite scary but at the same time quite rewarding when you get your plan to work. To be able to work with a little creature and figure out what makes them tick seems remarkable.
Brathawate (Sorry if I mispelled her name): "You may raise you're child a certain way but once they get to school it's another story... breast feeding is bonding... The book sucks, each child is different... This is my child, I'm gonna do it my way."
Rob: "My family is set in tradition but progressive... We have a different household, two dads... My family was afraid of the unknown... read books on parenting... I use time out."
Mom: "Combination of instinct, intuition and education... I read a couple of books... in some cases they were helpful but talking to other parents was more helpful... I think some of your characteristics are/were innate but I think those can be enhanced by your up bring."
For all three parents they all made the choice to read the books however it didn't seem like they were of much use. Like I said before though, think of it like preparing for a test, instead of studying one thing you should prepare for all aspects of the subject. Furthermore you could end up with the child who fits exactly what the book is saying. If you walked into a room with no further knowledge of what you were going to be asked to do you would feel helpless. Besides which its not like the baby is going to be an expert, you have to use the technique of guess and check in till you get the picture.
Another tie between all three parents is their maternal instincts kick in. I believe this is due to the fact that while you grow up repetition is what gets the message across. Parents take that repetition and either jumble it up or continue repeating it to raise their own. I also believe as much as we want to deny the fact that when we get older our ways of parenting will be completely opposite to the ones used on us, we will subconsciously repeat history in certain ways.
Part Four:
After Rob left our classroom, I thought to myself I want to adopt a baby when I'm old enough. The way he put it was so beautiful, with the mother practically handing her newborn into the arms of complete strangers. The fact that she hardly knew them but had so much trust for them after only a few minutes was remarkable. I would like to have my children that are my own as well but I think it would be a very interesting experience embracing another human being into my home. Regardless if the baby came from you or someone else its still your baby, and all three parents interviewed seemed proud to be able to say that. I am sure that type of feeling is one of the most rewarding you get could from parenting.
A lot of the units have had a tie in with my internship... Since I work with children that are of the ages of 2-3 I see the wide variety between them. They already all have personalities and attitudes. Watching them play is a learning experience in it self, I am practically seeing what my future could possibly hold. Not one of the children are alike, thats a aspect that as I'm sure is quite scary but at the same time quite rewarding when you get your plan to work. To be able to work with a little creature and figure out what makes them tick seems remarkable.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
HW 57
Like most things in life you honestly have to play it by ear. I don't think there is one set way of creating the perfect parent. Each kid is different and will react in a range of different ways. I think the best thing a parent could do in the beginning of their child's life is to find a good pre-school. At that age the brain is so much like a sponge that whatever is being processed will stick. What's kind of interesting is that after the age of 3 or 4, the child begins to spend less and less time with their parents and more and more time with their teacher(s) and other classmates. So the parents have to basically hope for the best and that the child who enters their home after 3 o'clock is stable enough to be able to handle.
Our memories from the early years of our life are practically non-existent. So is that to say our parents could treat us terribly up to a certain point and we would have no recollection of it? I think there should be a little bit of all the guiding principles incorporated into a home. If our personalities fluctuate so much and can only be momentary we have to have a grip at all the skills of both nurturing and confidence. Take this for example, if a parent shows to much humor the kid will never learn to take them seriously, and as they get older will end up walking all over them. However if the parent incorporates humor into the home but also makes it clear that sometimes obedience is necessary not only will it help the parent but probably shape the child as a more civilized person.
I wouldn't say parenting is going to come naturally but I think however we were raised will reflect our choice of action. Maybe not entirely but to at least some extent whatever is ingrained inside our minds will subconsciously bubble its way to the top. When or if I become a parent I am definitely going to read books on raising children. Its almost like when you study a bunch of material for a test, chances are a lot of what you studied might not even be on the actual test but the fact that you were prepared gives you practically a guarantee you can take on the challenge.
It seems like even at this age when a parent says walk we usually run, whatever they suggest we go against. Is this possibly the effect of a cycle that has been indented into our brains? In the online article: When Parenting Theories Backfire it discusses the simple method of teaching a child choices. You offer the blue and the red cup and they want the yellow. Whatever isn't offered or what isn't the parents choice/decision is the ideal choice for the kid. I guess it gives the kid a sense of rebellion against the superior but it also is what I think might be the main spark for argument.
Coming from someone who I believe was parented in this way (http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T130300.asp), as much as it may be effective as a young baby as you get older it makes the relationship tense. The parents think these tools will last forever and the kid gets aggravated by the lack of space. When your a baby you don't know the difference but once you develop a voice... your idea of wanting to be nurtured 24 hours a day slowly decreases.
i defined someone who is emotionally mature as one who doesn't have the attitude of a 5 year old and handles any given situation maturely. I think the way you are raised does shape your emotional maturity, if you are babied your entire life and always given what you want when you want it... the day someone says no your going to have a break down. You then will appear as a big baby, and people usually do not associate babies as emotionally mature human beings. More so the opposite and then society will look down on you and laugh at you which leads to you gaining no respect from peers.
Our memories from the early years of our life are practically non-existent. So is that to say our parents could treat us terribly up to a certain point and we would have no recollection of it? I think there should be a little bit of all the guiding principles incorporated into a home. If our personalities fluctuate so much and can only be momentary we have to have a grip at all the skills of both nurturing and confidence. Take this for example, if a parent shows to much humor the kid will never learn to take them seriously, and as they get older will end up walking all over them. However if the parent incorporates humor into the home but also makes it clear that sometimes obedience is necessary not only will it help the parent but probably shape the child as a more civilized person.
I wouldn't say parenting is going to come naturally but I think however we were raised will reflect our choice of action. Maybe not entirely but to at least some extent whatever is ingrained inside our minds will subconsciously bubble its way to the top. When or if I become a parent I am definitely going to read books on raising children. Its almost like when you study a bunch of material for a test, chances are a lot of what you studied might not even be on the actual test but the fact that you were prepared gives you practically a guarantee you can take on the challenge.
It seems like even at this age when a parent says walk we usually run, whatever they suggest we go against. Is this possibly the effect of a cycle that has been indented into our brains? In the online article: When Parenting Theories Backfire it discusses the simple method of teaching a child choices. You offer the blue and the red cup and they want the yellow. Whatever isn't offered or what isn't the parents choice/decision is the ideal choice for the kid. I guess it gives the kid a sense of rebellion against the superior but it also is what I think might be the main spark for argument.
Coming from someone who I believe was parented in this way (http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T130300.asp), as much as it may be effective as a young baby as you get older it makes the relationship tense. The parents think these tools will last forever and the kid gets aggravated by the lack of space. When your a baby you don't know the difference but once you develop a voice... your idea of wanting to be nurtured 24 hours a day slowly decreases.
i defined someone who is emotionally mature as one who doesn't have the attitude of a 5 year old and handles any given situation maturely. I think the way you are raised does shape your emotional maturity, if you are babied your entire life and always given what you want when you want it... the day someone says no your going to have a break down. You then will appear as a big baby, and people usually do not associate babies as emotionally mature human beings. More so the opposite and then society will look down on you and laugh at you which leads to you gaining no respect from peers.
Monday, May 17, 2010
HW 56
Questions (Part One):
1. When a stranger approaches you how do you normally react?
2. Would you consider a doctor, fireman or police officer a stranger?
3. Do you feel more connected to strangers or your friends/families?
4. Would you save a stranger in danger?
5. Do you consider homeless people strangers?
6. If at one point or another we were all strangers, why do you think most people get so shook when a stranger engages in conversation?
Part Two:
Interview # 1:
1. I usually try to help - or see if there is some question that needs to be answered.
2. Yes, if we define a stranger as someone we don't know.
3. More connected to my friends and family.
4. Yes, if it was reasonable to do so....
5. Yes, once again - as persons I do not know.
6. Because we sometimes feel that strangers might have other intentions besides having a conversation.
Interview # 2:
1. I'm worried, as I don't know why they would be approaching me.
2. No, I don't. If I don't know somebody, they are a stranger no matter what his or her profession is.
3. I feel more connected to my friends and family
4. I hope I would save a stranger in danger, but I can't guarantee I'd have the courage.
5. Yes
6. Because we are taught that it is better to be safe than sorry, and therefore better to assume that a stranger has bad intentions and that you should be wary of them.
Interview # 3:
1. It depends on the circumstances. If the person seems to be in their
right mind I am open to talking to them. I enjoy talking to
"strangers" because a lot can be learned and I like the sense of
commaderie... like when I'm waiting in a long line or something. If
the person is talking to themselves and seems disturbed I give them
lots of space. If they have a specific question that I can answer I
will but with caution and heightened awareness.
2. Yes, until I get to know them a little, which usually doesn't take that
long since they are accustomed to dealing with people and connecting
quickly.
3. To my friends and family.
4. Yes, as long I I didn't think I would die in doing so.
5. If I haven't met them, yes. But once I've met them, no.
6.Because they are afraid of the unknown. They might be afraid that they
will get hurt, something will be taken from them or that they will not
be able to give the person what they want. I think it is a good
practice to talk to "safe" strangers because then I'm not afraid. It's
like exercising a certain muscle. But, sometimes I might surprise or
"shake" a stranger by talking to them. Once they assess the situation
most people seem to feel I am an okay stranger to talk with.
Part Three:
In John Guare's screenplay 6 Degrees of Separation it shows the audience the closeness of strangers. The saying "6 Degrees of Separation" means that we are only six degrees away from every other person on this planet. However from my survey it seems like if one of those people approaches us unless they are in their right mind we stay clear and with precaution. Essentially what I think this means is that there are two types of strangers, the normal ones and the crazy ones. Even though we are connected to both we feel more comfortable with the normal ones. This seems pretty understandable but isn't it interesting that many people isolate certain family members because they don't "get along." These family members than turn into strangers and I think all the "crazy strangers" out there have most likely been isolated in some way or another, we probably don't think that way though when we are surrounded by them though...
Survey Question:
If you saw a person fall into the subway tracks would you save them?
1. When a stranger approaches you how do you normally react?
2. Would you consider a doctor, fireman or police officer a stranger?
3. Do you feel more connected to strangers or your friends/families?
4. Would you save a stranger in danger?
5. Do you consider homeless people strangers?
6. If at one point or another we were all strangers, why do you think most people get so shook when a stranger engages in conversation?
Part Two:
Interview # 1:
1. I usually try to help - or see if there is some question that needs to be answered.
2. Yes, if we define a stranger as someone we don't know.
3. More connected to my friends and family.
4. Yes, if it was reasonable to do so....
5. Yes, once again - as persons I do not know.
6. Because we sometimes feel that strangers might have other intentions besides having a conversation.
Interview # 2:
1. I'm worried, as I don't know why they would be approaching me.
2. No, I don't. If I don't know somebody, they are a stranger no matter what his or her profession is.
3. I feel more connected to my friends and family
4. I hope I would save a stranger in danger, but I can't guarantee I'd have the courage.
5. Yes
6. Because we are taught that it is better to be safe than sorry, and therefore better to assume that a stranger has bad intentions and that you should be wary of them.
Interview # 3:
1. It depends on the circumstances. If the person seems to be in their
right mind I am open to talking to them. I enjoy talking to
"strangers" because a lot can be learned and I like the sense of
commaderie... like when I'm waiting in a long line or something. If
the person is talking to themselves and seems disturbed I give them
lots of space. If they have a specific question that I can answer I
will but with caution and heightened awareness.
2. Yes, until I get to know them a little, which usually doesn't take that
long since they are accustomed to dealing with people and connecting
quickly.
3. To my friends and family.
4. Yes, as long I I didn't think I would die in doing so.
5. If I haven't met them, yes. But once I've met them, no.
6.Because they are afraid of the unknown. They might be afraid that they
will get hurt, something will be taken from them or that they will not
be able to give the person what they want. I think it is a good
practice to talk to "safe" strangers because then I'm not afraid. It's
like exercising a certain muscle. But, sometimes I might surprise or
"shake" a stranger by talking to them. Once they assess the situation
most people seem to feel I am an okay stranger to talk with.
Part Three:
In John Guare's screenplay 6 Degrees of Separation it shows the audience the closeness of strangers. The saying "6 Degrees of Separation" means that we are only six degrees away from every other person on this planet. However from my survey it seems like if one of those people approaches us unless they are in their right mind we stay clear and with precaution. Essentially what I think this means is that there are two types of strangers, the normal ones and the crazy ones. Even though we are connected to both we feel more comfortable with the normal ones. This seems pretty understandable but isn't it interesting that many people isolate certain family members because they don't "get along." These family members than turn into strangers and I think all the "crazy strangers" out there have most likely been isolated in some way or another, we probably don't think that way though when we are surrounded by them though...
Survey Question:
If you saw a person fall into the subway tracks would you save them?
Friday, May 14, 2010
HW 55
Research Question: Can strangers be depended upon in life or death situations? Are we closer to the strangers around us more than we realize?
Whenever a stranger talks to us like Andy says we become frightened. Mostly due to the fact that it is not the norm and it catches us off guard. It triggers a sense of fright and uncomfortableness. I think this is mainly due to the fact that most people live on their feet waiting for the next bad thing to happen. So we think if we put up a shield we will be ready to fight the moment it happens. However some of these stranger might help us when that shield doesn't work. When we are stuck in a fire, robbed or are health is at risk it isn't probably going to be the people we know the most. But the strangers who we have hardly any relationship to. So the way we treat the strangers one day may change the second we realize we need their help...
Abe: I can see where you are going but I think you need to make it less vague. I don't know if this question can be proven or have a direct answer. A suggestion I have is to maybe say, How many people stay friends with the ones made in high school? What is the percentage of child divorcing parent? If you have any questions, let me know and I will try to rework your question differently. Also it might be easier if you pick friends or family. I think the two subjects make it more difficult to find solid answers.
Mohammed: I really like your topic. I just don't know how much it can be answered directly. I think you should try to revise the second part and just answer that one. Maybe a idea for a new question could be: How many more suicides have happened since the world of Facebook, myspace and Twitter was created? How does this compare to 10 or 15 years ago? I was reading an article about a girl who committed suicide because of the website formspring...It might be interesting to see how the pressure of these websites is affecting the stability of especially teenagers.
1.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sept_11_2001/health_and_environmental_issues/index.html?scp=5&sq=firefighters&st=cse
On September 11th 2001 not only did strangers assist the people in danger but risked their own lives. For the ones who survived their health did not go back to normal. They increased the risk of cancers and other diseases. It's interesting that we never think about these factors when a stranger talks to us, will they be the one to save my life? If we did question this though maybe that would change the way we treat strangers. By classifying them as impostors we are atomatically assuming they are bad people. Maybe if we weren't so frightened by the abnormality of the unknown our lives would feel less incomplete. (Navarro, Mireya. "9/11 Health and Environmental Issues News - The New York Times." Times Topics. Web..)
2.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/doctors_without_borders/index.html?scp=1&sq=doctors%20with%20no%20borders&st=cse
What is interesting about this organization is that the people they help either accept the strangers or tell them to leave. Since the United States isn't a third world country we are less inclined to be helped by those around us. Although I am sure in third world countries the people in need of help will take it without question. The people working with Doctors Without Borders, are there to medically assist the suffering but also observe to see why the suffering may have initially started. It seems as though the people don't mind the medical attention but when the criticising starts the strangers can pack there bags... (Gettleman, Jeffrey. "Doctors Without Borders News - The New York Times." Times Topics. Web..)
3.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/obama-thanks-families-of-slain-police-officers/?scp=3&sq=police&st=cse
Obama shows thanks to those who risked their lives for other strangers. Something interesting to question though is, do we view our uniformed citizens as strangers? Is there a difference between someone who could suddenly turn into a life saver verses someone who does it as their job? Maybe.... but what if that person who does wear a uniform starts up a casual conversation when the uniform isn't flashing, and you look at them as if they are out of their mind. However in reality if they were nonexistent our live span would most likely be much shorter. (Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. "Obama Thanks Families of Slain Police Officers - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com." Politics and Government - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com. Web..)
4.
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/would-you-help-an-injured-stranger/?scp=3&sq=strangers&st=cse
The talk of the homeless man who saved a woman who was being robbed has been quite a conversation recently. I think it is mainly due to the fact that homeless people are alienated from most of the population. They are looked down on as lazy and helpless. What if what happened to this man happened to you though? I wouldn't want to be left on the street drowning in my own blood. The fact of the matter is though is this man was originally just trying to help a stranger and then the strangers around him didn't have the decency to help him in return. Most of the answers from this survey were shocked by the choices that were made in this incident but if they were in the moment would they honestly look at this stranger and help him as they said they would? (Ojavlo, Holly E. "Would You Help an Injured Stranger?" New York Times (blog). 27 Apr. 2010. Web.
Whenever a stranger talks to us like Andy says we become frightened. Mostly due to the fact that it is not the norm and it catches us off guard. It triggers a sense of fright and uncomfortableness. I think this is mainly due to the fact that most people live on their feet waiting for the next bad thing to happen. So we think if we put up a shield we will be ready to fight the moment it happens. However some of these stranger might help us when that shield doesn't work. When we are stuck in a fire, robbed or are health is at risk it isn't probably going to be the people we know the most. But the strangers who we have hardly any relationship to. So the way we treat the strangers one day may change the second we realize we need their help...
Abe: I can see where you are going but I think you need to make it less vague. I don't know if this question can be proven or have a direct answer. A suggestion I have is to maybe say, How many people stay friends with the ones made in high school? What is the percentage of child divorcing parent? If you have any questions, let me know and I will try to rework your question differently. Also it might be easier if you pick friends or family. I think the two subjects make it more difficult to find solid answers.
Mohammed: I really like your topic. I just don't know how much it can be answered directly. I think you should try to revise the second part and just answer that one. Maybe a idea for a new question could be: How many more suicides have happened since the world of Facebook, myspace and Twitter was created? How does this compare to 10 or 15 years ago? I was reading an article about a girl who committed suicide because of the website formspring...It might be interesting to see how the pressure of these websites is affecting the stability of especially teenagers.
1.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sept_11_2001/health_and_environmental_issues/index.html?scp=5&sq=firefighters&st=cse
On September 11th 2001 not only did strangers assist the people in danger but risked their own lives. For the ones who survived their health did not go back to normal. They increased the risk of cancers and other diseases. It's interesting that we never think about these factors when a stranger talks to us, will they be the one to save my life? If we did question this though maybe that would change the way we treat strangers. By classifying them as impostors we are atomatically assuming they are bad people. Maybe if we weren't so frightened by the abnormality of the unknown our lives would feel less incomplete. (Navarro, Mireya. "9/11 Health and Environmental Issues News - The New York Times." Times Topics. Web.
2.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/doctors_without_borders/index.html?scp=1&sq=doctors%20with%20no%20borders&st=cse
What is interesting about this organization is that the people they help either accept the strangers or tell them to leave. Since the United States isn't a third world country we are less inclined to be helped by those around us. Although I am sure in third world countries the people in need of help will take it without question. The people working with Doctors Without Borders, are there to medically assist the suffering but also observe to see why the suffering may have initially started. It seems as though the people don't mind the medical attention but when the criticising starts the strangers can pack there bags... (Gettleman, Jeffrey. "Doctors Without Borders News - The New York Times." Times Topics. Web.
3.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/obama-thanks-families-of-slain-police-officers/?scp=3&sq=police&st=cse
Obama shows thanks to those who risked their lives for other strangers. Something interesting to question though is, do we view our uniformed citizens as strangers? Is there a difference between someone who could suddenly turn into a life saver verses someone who does it as their job? Maybe.... but what if that person who does wear a uniform starts up a casual conversation when the uniform isn't flashing, and you look at them as if they are out of their mind. However in reality if they were nonexistent our live span would most likely be much shorter. (Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. "Obama Thanks Families of Slain Police Officers - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com." Politics and Government - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com. Web.
4.
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/would-you-help-an-injured-stranger/?scp=3&sq=strangers&st=cse
The talk of the homeless man who saved a woman who was being robbed has been quite a conversation recently. I think it is mainly due to the fact that homeless people are alienated from most of the population. They are looked down on as lazy and helpless. What if what happened to this man happened to you though? I wouldn't want to be left on the street drowning in my own blood. The fact of the matter is though is this man was originally just trying to help a stranger and then the strangers around him didn't have the decency to help him in return. Most of the answers from this survey were shocked by the choices that were made in this incident but if they were in the moment would they honestly look at this stranger and help him as they said they would? (Ojavlo, Holly E. "Would You Help an Injured Stranger?" New York Times (blog). 27 Apr. 2010. Web.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
HW 54
Part One:
Extroverted (E) 61.54% Introverted (I) 38.46%
Intuitive (N) 52.5% Sensing (S) 47.5%
Feeling (F) 57.5% Thinking (T) 42.5%
Perceiving (P) 51.52% Judging (J) 48.48%
Your type is: ENFP
ENFP - "Journalist". Uncanny sense of the motivations of others. Life is an exciting drama. 8.1% of total population.
For every part of the breakdown of what kind of person I make up, most of the percentages were about 50/50. Part of me feels as if maybe the reasoning of this, is due to the fact that our personalities change by the moment. This change depends on the people we are around or the type of situation we find ourselves in. However the higher the percentage is probably what we strive for or the one we desire more. It is as if to say our brain knows what is appropriate for that moment. So subconsciously the brain is flipping our light switches off and on, and we are oblivious to the change in the light.
However the exact percentage is quite useful. As I said before in my HW 52 our friends are the mirrors of us. They reflect all of the components we are made up of. If most of our friends have similar percentages in each portion of the survey, that would make complete sense. They are at the same level as us, and that allows us to feel more comfortable around them. Although there is a possibility that we could have friends who had opposite percentages, that might also make sense though. It is as if to say they complete us and give us the missing part of ourselves.
Part Two:
We listen to what we want to hear. We select what we want the outcome to be, most of the time. We usually don't intentionally put ourselves in situations where we know we will feel uncomfortable. The feeling of uncomfortableness is most of the time provoked by an error or a mistake in our calculations. Hence why we usually surround ourselves with more similarity than difference. I thought the surveys were accurate, yet I believe it was mainly due to the fact that we selected answers that would lead us to what we thought of ourselves. Our ideas are programed into those around us, so they will view us as certain people. Maybe that is why when strangers talk to us or we meet a stranger, we feel uncomfortable... Mainly due to the idea of them not knowing what we are made up of and we don't want them to view us as a different combination.
Extroverted (E) 61.54% Introverted (I) 38.46%
Intuitive (N) 52.5% Sensing (S) 47.5%
Feeling (F) 57.5% Thinking (T) 42.5%
Perceiving (P) 51.52% Judging (J) 48.48%
Your type is: ENFP
ENFP - "Journalist". Uncanny sense of the motivations of others. Life is an exciting drama. 8.1% of total population.
For every part of the breakdown of what kind of person I make up, most of the percentages were about 50/50. Part of me feels as if maybe the reasoning of this, is due to the fact that our personalities change by the moment. This change depends on the people we are around or the type of situation we find ourselves in. However the higher the percentage is probably what we strive for or the one we desire more. It is as if to say our brain knows what is appropriate for that moment. So subconsciously the brain is flipping our light switches off and on, and we are oblivious to the change in the light.
However the exact percentage is quite useful. As I said before in my HW 52 our friends are the mirrors of us. They reflect all of the components we are made up of. If most of our friends have similar percentages in each portion of the survey, that would make complete sense. They are at the same level as us, and that allows us to feel more comfortable around them. Although there is a possibility that we could have friends who had opposite percentages, that might also make sense though. It is as if to say they complete us and give us the missing part of ourselves.
Part Two:
We listen to what we want to hear. We select what we want the outcome to be, most of the time. We usually don't intentionally put ourselves in situations where we know we will feel uncomfortable. The feeling of uncomfortableness is most of the time provoked by an error or a mistake in our calculations. Hence why we usually surround ourselves with more similarity than difference. I thought the surveys were accurate, yet I believe it was mainly due to the fact that we selected answers that would lead us to what we thought of ourselves. Our ideas are programed into those around us, so they will view us as certain people. Maybe that is why when strangers talk to us or we meet a stranger, we feel uncomfortable... Mainly due to the idea of them not knowing what we are made up of and we don't want them to view us as a different combination.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
HW 53
Part One: I took the survey.
Part Two: I feel like when thinking generally about subjects such as the ones asked about we usually make it out to be much worse. When in reality our lives are not as bad as most. One of the questions that I thought was particularly interesting was, If you could live your life over you'd change it... It seems like all the other questions led up to this one. The sense of regret or not being satisfied with your life up to this point. People usually say not to live life with regret but to use your mistakes. I agree with that, each day is a start to change and its up to you to change your life. I can't imagine erasing every memory and every moment of my life to change it completely. I don't know if I would want that and I can't imagine why anyone else would want to either.
I understand however that there are people out there who if given the option would probably take it. A large majority of the people in this world lead very hard lives but by changing your life over, does this mean you change the family you are surrounded by as well? It seems like if you were to have a harder life than most the root of the problem may be family. Since family is the first to open your eyes to the world and guide the way for you. So maybe its not the life they would want to change but the people who brought them into this world.
Part Three: I focused again on the question about changing life over. The results from this were 40% of those who took the survey would change their lives over. Then I noticed that 60% of the people who took the survey felt happy. 40% + 60% = 100%. Meaning that those who probably don't want to change their life are happy. Or maybe happy enough to not want to erase what they have. I thought it was really sad that 32% of the people have thought about suicide. Not even just erasing and starting over but ending it completely. I wonder what makes those thoughts trigger...
Part Four: I thought some of the questions were similar to some of the ones asked on ours. Especially in terms of what we put into our body. Under the categories of Partnering - Romance - Sexuality. Also in terms of Self, politics, etc. Differences though were that under those categories there were many more questions. The Health Youth Survey pin pointed every aspect of the subject. While we just brushed upon it. However the results of the similar questions had similar results. I guess it shows that the masses agree and have the same ideas.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
HW 52
Throughout my life and even now the friends I have had or have seem to make up different traits of myself. I think it’s mainly due to the fact that we are such a culture of being self-conscious. We break ourselves down and classify each friend as a go to for ______. We have our advice friend, our funny friend, our emotional friend etc. Each friend makes up a detailed portion of us. I think the reason why this is so common especially among teenagers is because if we see what goes wrong within them we can subconsciously change it within ourselves.
Most people give at least one piece of advice a day, but has it ever occurred to us that the advice we give should be listened to by us first. People love getting attention and love compliments, it is like a way of avoiding our problems. Maybe the reason why we give so much advice is because we can tell ourselves that there is someone else out there with bigger problems than us. But we have to face the fact that we all have problems and most of the time they are unavoidable.
Personally I don’t know what motivates me to get out of bed every morning. I think I do because its routine, I’m used to it. Maybe it’s the fact that in order to not be a couch potato that does nothing with their life I have to. It goes directly back to being self-conscious. We are so scared of how others will judge us that we need to live up to certain standards or expectations of others.
A couple of weeks ago there was a homeless man who saved a woman from being robbed. He risked his life and it ended up costing him his own. He was left on the sidewalk bleeding. For about an hour people walked by and did nothing. Probably due to the fact he wasn’t wearing a suit so people had no respect for him. I think that’s what we are scared of though, no one wanting to be there for us. The feeling of loneliness and helplessness. It seems like unfortunately that if you don’t have the normal motivation that the mass does, you are looked down on and walked by as if you don’t exist.
The media takes a serious toll on what is realistic and what is not. They take average situations and add the Hollywood to them. Us normal people get confused on what is true and what isn’t. So then we begin to try to take certain aspects from the movies and incorporate them into our own lives. Once this is completed and we try using the aspects we realize they don’t work in real life. That however makes us frustrated because people believe what they read and what they see. People set such high standards and play out scenarios that have no chance of actually working out. Since most movies can relate to most people we find general aspects of our own lives within them and then convince ourselves that the movie plot is identical to our own. If we are a culture that lives like this we are doomed to fail.
Something that bugs me is when I sit and over analyze so many pointless situations. I'll look back years later and think to myself, what was I thinking? I guess its kind of weird how in the moment so many people have such big impacts on us. As time goes on though those impacts become less and less, and become vivid memories in our minds.
I don't understand why people lie so much. Do I look fat in this? Does my hair look bad? Did you talk to him? I mean I understand that sometimes it's better to not be completely honest but other times the truth is better off. Even if we do lie though the truth always comes out and back around. There is no way of avoiding the truth and it hurts even more when you hear it through the grape vine. Part of me feels like people lie so much because they are afraid to be themselves. So they have to make up for all of their imperfection and awkwardness. We protect ourselves so much from getting hurt but all good things come to an end, so why waste unnecessary time lying to ourselves?
A couple of months ago I was talking to my best friend on the bus, and this man next to us was eves dropping. He flat out said: "It's never gonna get better..." I guess we all have the same objective, find true love and spend the rest of your life with them. Maybe he said that because he didn't make mistakes when he was younger, so he was experiencing things later. Still it seems like things can be great for a while and then go so bad in an instant. All because one thing was said or one thing was done. We never know when this moment is going to happen and it's usually when you least expect it. Not just romantically speaking but with friendships as well. How can we prepare ourselves mentally for moments like these? Do we just always have to live waiting for it to happen?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
HW 51
What can schools realistically do to address the systematic problems of inequality, anti-intellectualism, and meaninglessness in our society?
Introduction: Living in America presents us with many opportunities to fulfill a rich meaningful life. Unfortunately we are so obsessed with always being number one that many of the concepts that seem like no big deal to us are taken for granted. One of the concepts we take for granted is school. The idea of the grass is greener on the other side plays into this. We complain so much about how we have to go to school day after day, we think to ourselves oh how I wish I didn’t have to go to school! The thing is though if we weren’t in school we would probably be working. There are in fact children in this world who lead a life like that. While I was in Egypt children as young as four came up to our group trying to sell us souvenirs. It made me feel heart broken, most of these children will never learn to read or write. For the most part these children will have the same job for the rest of their life. Children in the United States at this age are within a classroom exploring and discovering their imaginations. Sadly enough most of the world is much more like Egypt than we realize. If we embrace our education and challenge ourselves to be strong thinkers, our lives will be much more complete.
Argument One: Not only do we have the option to go to school in this country but it is also free. Meaning that regardless of financial circumstances, anyone can attend. Of course there are private schools but coming from experience a public school education gives you much more of an idea of what the “real world” is going to be. When we first started this unit I interviewed my mother and a line that struck me was: “School can actually be a microcosm of the world and we can learn how to live in the world.” I remember arguing with her and saying how experience is more important. I firmly believed that sitting in a classroom day after day resulted with no knowledge of how to deal with “real life situations.” But looking at it now, I hate to admit it but I agree with her. What happens in school allows us to work out problems and have that experience under our belt. Just because we are in school doesn’t mean we are not in the real world, it is just a part of how our world operates. Since we go to such a diverse school, we have the skills to be able to work with anyone regardless of their race, religion or gender. In our country those three categories often separate many people. However we will know how to work with anyone and not discriminate because of differences.
Argument Two: “Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.” (Obama) Especially since our generation has grown up with the computer, we all tend to be quite lazy. I could be sitting on my bed with my laptop and my book bag might be two feet away but I am too lazy to stand up and get it. I think that’s the problem, we have no motivation to give it what we got. The thing with school is even when we wake up mornings to lazy to get out of bed, our parents encourage us to. They make up for the motivation we lack, and with that little push we enter a world of discovery. Personally for the past three years I have had mediocre grades, I am not sure what happened but I realized that doing okay work was a waste of time. My teachers were giving me tools to use and I was doing a half ass job. Now I am using these tools to help and guide me to find something that I am good at. Since this class involves a lot of questioning and focusing on curiosity, we are a little bit more intellectual than most of America. Without school I am not sure if I could make that statement…
Argument Three: If we wake up every morning feeling as if there is no point then of course this idea is going to continue throughout ones life. That makes you someone who lives with a glass half empty. Mr. Fanning came in a not too long ago to speak to our class. I left class that day feeling really different about our school. The way he explained his ideas made me understand why SOF does certain things. He said: "SOF does things that are good education. We embody the student as an individual. You should question everything." It is quite apparent that himself and the other teachers actually do care about our ideas. They are willing to work with us to discover them and try to support us through discovering what makes us interested. He then went on to saying, "Perfect education is a lifetime education." Just because once we graduate and go out in the world does not mean we will ever stop learning. Part of me feels as if the students who go to schools where testing is a number one priority will be less likely to question things, to have the urge to learn new things for the rest of their lives. Merely because they are taught not to discover but to maintain a set in stone understanding. So even though they might end up at top schools whose main focus is the number, doesn't make them any better than the rest of us. In many ways our lives will be much more meaningful because we will pursue things that have significance to us. We will go into fields that we can spend the rest of our lives discovering and although some of these "robots" might do the same... it will be at a completely different level of learning.
Alternative Point of View: In: "Alternatives in Education - The Other Side of ADD" http://borntoexplore.org/addsvs.htm which is an independently run website that preaches the idea that there is a link between the system of US Education and ADD. The United States bases their educational system off the German. Germany's Schooling was to make better factory workers and better solders. There system seemed to be quite successful so we copied them as well as many countries. The only difference between us and them is that we didn't want our students to be illiterate. Considering the fact that ADD is the most over diagnosed disorder it probably has very little to do with the brains and more with the similarity between most schools. If in most schools being yelled at and training for jobs is the main focus how can children explore their creative imagination. Just as it is described in the website, how can people focus if what they are learning has no interest to them? Or further more has no time for exploration in thinking topics?
Conclusion: My ideas on school have changed so drastically in the past couple of weeks. I think a lot of it has to do with not appreciating the good in certain situations. I guess since most teenagers have negative attitudes about coming to school it becomes a mutual feeling. I am grateful that because of school I have a better chance of doing something with my life. Although I am probably not going to become the president, things that I have learned in school will probably come up when I come become an adult. I think about the children of Egypt a lot and it makes me upset about the way they live. By going to school everyday in some strange way may help it so one day all children in this world will have the same opportunity. If we live each day knowing that we are going to be learning for the rest of our lives, maybe it’ll help us see that this part is so small compared to the amount of time we have on this earth. So instead of wasting away a good opportunity to be successful, we should take it all in and use it in the best way possible.
Monday, April 26, 2010
HW 50
Oh Gatto... not only does he state the obvious in 6 lessons but he does it in a way so the reader feels like wow I feel stupid... His first lesson is essentially saying keep the kids on a leash. Then he goes on to explain how we are a species of demand. We are told to do something, we proceed to do it, we are told to stop, we listen. In his third lesson he advocates that students are sneaky and a watchful eye is necessary. The teacher is in charge and what they say goes. Fourth lesson is that determining factor of the students knowledge, the teacher's higher power instructs and the teacher proceeds. In his fifth lesson he opens our eyes to see that we should always have self respect, and to wait for the insult coming our direction. Lastly in his sixth lesson he reminds us we are under constant watch like hawks looking for prey.
I couldn't not smile while reading this text. Although what he is saying sounds horrible you can't help but laugh. I guess because we are so used to living our life based on the same six lessons every year that we are immune to it. We never truly understand how basic the teaching structure is and how it is practically mocking our intelligence. The description of this makes us sound like completely uneducated human beings and in some ways we sound like animals being tamed.
Freire on the other hand did not state the obvious but more so pointed out a concept. The idea that without the teacher the student is nothing. Our brains are just mindless objects sitting there rotting away. So the teachers come in with their watering cans and bring life to our brains. For without them it would be useless. Since the teachers know everything and we know nothing, it is extremely necessary that they are in our lives. They recite the most valuable information from their brains, we process it and spit it right back out to prove we understand what's going on.
I don't think Freire's banking system really defines a students knowledge. Yes, it will show that the student is good at memorization and retaining. However, the ideas circling throughout the students head are not their own but merely something their teacher was taught and that the teacher before that was taught. It is a never ending cycle of the same information circling. In many schools though especially ones who aim for high SAT scores and high test grades the banking system most definitely comes into play. Do these kids have their own opinions though that they can support with evidence and have reason for their beliefs? Probably not.
Delpit is on the completely opposite spectrum of education verses Freire. She doesn't think testing can measure the knowledge but more so hurt discovering it. She believes it is the teachers job to be the observer and study the student to find the brilliance inside of them. Delpit feels as if the best possible way to understand the student is through the arts. Not only to gain a better understanding of the student but to bring out a new side to the student. In her mind no student is unintelligent they just might not have had their brilliance discovered yet.
It is very quick to understand that Delpit is in it for the student. She creates a curriculum not for the masses but for the individual. Maybe the core problem with education is if everyone is expected to understand the same material then of course some will be left in the dust. Since we all think differently and react differently to things presented to us of course some will understand certain things better then others. That is not to say though that those people are stupid because in a different situation the tables could be completely turned. The only idea of hers that I am a little opposed to is why can't the student be a part of deciding what their strengths and weaknesses are. It's not that she judging the book by its cover but she is making the overall decision for what is in the students best interest.
Mr. Fanning came in a not too long ago to speak to our class. I left class that day feeling really different about our school. The way he explained his ideas made me understand why SOF does certain things. He said "SOF does things that are good education. We embody the student as an individual. You should question everything." It is quite apparent that himself and the other teachers actually do care about our ideas. They are willing to work with us to discover them and try to support us through discovering what makes us interested. He then went on to saying, "Perfect education is a lifetime education." Just because once we graduate and go out in the world does not mean we will ever stop learning.
Part of me feels as if the students who go to schools where testing is a number one priority will be less likely to question things, to have the urge to learn new things for the rest of their lives. Merely because they are taught not to discover but to maintain a set in stone understanding. So even though they might end up at top schools whose main focus is the number, doesn't make them any better than the rest of us. In many ways our lives will be much more meaningful because we will pursue things that have significance to us. We will go into fields that we can spend the rest of our lives discovering and although some of these "robots" might do the same... it will be at a completely different level of learning.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
HW 49
Unfortunately our section finished filming our movie but it has not been edited yet. My contribution to the film was playing the character of one of the students who saves the teacher. Out of our class the four students - Leah, Steph, Kareem and myself found Andy (Mr. Westwood) after a school dance coked up. We had to act extremely shocked and disgusted by the fact that our favorite teacher had let us down on so many levels. Then finally we flashed forward to a scene of us reflecting with Mr. Westwood. In this scene we had to act very proud of our teacher and praise him for being resilient and turning his life around.
The message of our movie was quite different from the 'Blackboard Jungle' movies. In our film instead of the teacher being the savior the roles were reversed. On the first day of school Mr. Westwood caught the students attention immediately and all the students were intrigued by his striking introduction. However some of the students came to realize their favorite teacher was not everything they thought he was cut out to be. When he was found on drugs and they shortly discovered the drugs hiding within the nooks of his classroom they felt extremely let down. It seemed as if the message being taught to them wasn't being lived up to by Mr. Westwood. The movie then flashes forward to the students gaining their respect back for Mr. Westwood because he recovered from his drug addiction but little do they know that after a close friend dies their favorite teacher goes right back to square one...
The tone of the movie is very dark and mysterious. I think the viewers might be able to see that the teacher is hiding something. This being because his body language and the way he speaks seems unsure and hesitant. In the scene of the climax of the story the tone starts out pretty normal but gets fired up and suspenseful when the students find him on the floor. The tone then changes completely when the students and the teacher reflect into a sort of bittersweet atmosphere. But shortly changes back to the dark, mysterious and suspenseful tone when he starts using again.
Our film was very different from the savior teacher films it was literally the complete opposite. While the teachers were the ones saving the students and attempting to turn the lives around, our teacher was the one needing to be saved. He was preaching a message to the students and inspiring them right from the start to be active learners. In the savior teacher films the teacher struggled to grasp the attention of the "delinquents" but once they did they felt like a life changer. In our film the teacher let the students down but used the reaction of the students to help himself stop using.
I feel as if the cliche answer for why someone wants to teach is "... because I want to and I like to help people." I think that after a teacher has reached a student they sleep better at night. The idea of knowing that you made an impact and a difference to even just one persons life makes you feel good about yourself. At my internship there was a new student teacher this week and she was probably about 45 years old. She told me that she had just recently decided to change careers. I am not saying that is unusual or a bad thing but it makes me wonder how did you wake up one day and decide to make this change? Is it because of the media? Are these savior teacher movies made to push people toward the educational field of work?
In many ways though every institution deals with helping people. I guess we all want to be the one to change the world and make it a better place. Although we don't like to admit that I can't think of any job that doesn't go right back to the helping of others. However like Andy said our parents biggest concerns are finding the best doctor and the best teacher. This being because we are most concerned about our health and our intelligence. We want to life long lives in a stable environment... the only way to achieve those goals are to find people who do their jobs well. Hence after savior teacher films and programs on TV like ER and Grey's Anatomy our perception of what is good and what is unrealistic become very discombobulated. I have had some very good teachers over my life and I can't think of one that reminds me of a savior teacher.
This is not to say they are not good but how the media portrays education is not accurate. I have a feeling that the teachers who are similar to the movies are not as successful as the ones who life by their own standards. The difference is they have no real passion just an idea set in their head of how they can lead a fulfilling life.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
HW 48
Lindsey Peters wakes up this morning thinking... what the hell am I doing? She quit her big paying shiny job at one of the best law firms in New York weeks before. For months she felt as if her life wasn't going anywhere and she wanted to try to help the world in a different way. She had always had a passion for working with children and had a feeling now was her time. So as she lies in bed for those few moments of peace and quiet in the morning a million thoughts were running through her head. For the first time in her life she had no idea what she was getting herself into but deep down inside she knew something extraordinary was about to take place.
Lindsey's radio alarm clock goes off (inspirational music ?) and she hops out of bed. Walks over to closet and pushes all her charcoal colored suits aside. She pulls out a yellow dress and places on her bed. Camera zooms in on dress. Audience then watches Lindsey as she walks to the train, in her yellow dress. Everyone around seems to notice her and acknowledge her. Film of the subway trains. Lindsey grabs a cup of coffee and a apple at one of the street vendors and heads toward the school.
Lindsey walks into school, it's dark and gloomy. She notices that most of the kids are rowdy and pushy. One of the many security guards spots her and shouts to get her attention. She is then noticed by all the students who look at her like she is an alien. Lindsey is escorted to the main office. The secretary tries to make conversation with Lindsey, she can see that she is nervous.
The secretary tells Lindsey that the Principal is ready for her... Lindsey walks into his office and tells herself that this is all an experience. Something that she lives by, experience is a lesson that will stick with you forever. Normal introductions with principal take place, Lindsey sits down. She then begins to describe to the principal in a very cliche way the reason of why she wants to teach. The principal looks over her resume and after Lindsey is finished with her spiel seems quite confused. Why would a good lawyer change careers to teach to a bunch of kids? In some strange way he is quite intrigued by her story and asks her to start immediately. Her tells her how they are in desperate need of a social studies teacher and he thinks she would be perfect for the job. Lindsey accepts the offer.
The secretary walks Lindsey through what seems to be the longest hallway ever. Small talk takes place and the secretary seems to be hiding something from Lindsey. The walls have nothing on them and the school in general seems very run down. Lindsey doesn't know what to expect from the classrooms. The secretary opens the door to Lindsey's room, there is loud music and shouting coming from it. She steps in the students don't even seem to notice that anyone has even entered the room. The secretary pulls out a whistle and blows it for a good 10 seconds. Finally the students look up from whatever is distracting them. She introduces the students to Lindsey. Then hands Lindsey the keys to the room and shows her where the phone is in case she needs help. Lindsey feels overwhelmed. The secretary leaves.
Lindsey walks over to her desk which is front and center. The students go back to whatever they were doing. She places her apple and coffee on her desk. She then begins to write her name on the board. Ms. Peters. What the hell am I doing continues to run through her mind... She tries to get the kids attention but fails. She pulls out her laptop and turns the volume so high that it over powers the students voices. She is playing Obama's inauguration speech. One kids shouts "Who is this?" She begins to explain to the students what they are listening to until a student in the corner shouts "I don't wanna hear this BS." Lindsey is struck by the comment and before she realizes she looses the students attention. So she stands there in the middle of the noisy classroom with the words of Obama continuing to play from her computer. The bell rings.
Lindsey decides to walk home after a bad first day. She walks by union square and a protest is going on. Suddenly she realizes that she needs to bring experience into these kids lives, maybe that will stick with them.
The next day she goes back with a different attitude than before. She gets the kids attentions with big signs that state different things. She shows them videos of important leaders who protested to get their ideas out there. She asks the kids what messages they want to bring to the world. After class a girl walks up to her desk and tells her that no one ever asks what they think everyone just always expects they know nothing. Lindsey is touched by the girls comment.
We then see the days continue to pass and the students become more and more engaged. No dialogue in this part... (Music Plays - Song undecided) The students truly begin to enjoy her class and finally feel as if their voices are heard more than ever. The whole attitude of the school changes...
A current issue in New York gets brought up one day in class and the students decide they want to protest. Lindsey agrees and proceeds after class to get permission from the principal... He says no because if for some reason violence broke out it would be on him. Lindsey tells the students the situation and they decide to do it behind Lindsey and the principal.
Footage of the protest, in the beginning it is peaceful. Something happens and the student who in the beginning made a nasty comment to Lindsey starts fighting with the police watching them. He gets arrested. Lindsey and the principal find out, and Lindsey gets fired.
The students are very upset that this has happened so a few of them go to the board of education and try to get her re-hired. It works...
Two years go by.... Lindsey is now the principal of the school and 100% of the class she taught has got into at least one college. The girl who made the comment on the first few days of school who opened Lindsey's eyes speaks at graduation. She focuses on experience and how everyone should have a voice in this world. She thanks Lindsey for giving her and her classmates voices.
Lindsey goes to bed that night, thinking that something extraordinary has happened. Movie ends.
Extra Credit - The Class
"I rejected the idea of making us fit in with the system." - the gothic boys mother. I think the teacher in 'The Class' was trying to reach each student individually within the whole class. Not every student though wanted to be reached. I think that is the case in many situations though, people don't want to be looked down on. In the final scene of the movie one of the students comes up to the teacher saying she hadn't learned anything. She was ashamed by the fact that all her fellow peers had at least a little bit of knowledge in one of the subjects but she had nothing. Essentially I think that was a cry for help and she was reaching out for the teachers guidance.
Souleymane was an example of a student who didn't want to be reached. This was made very clear by his outbreaks in class and lack of preparation for class... However when the students were typing their self-portraits when the teacher didn't directly reach out to him it was obvious something sparked within Souleymane. During the parent teacher conference his mother and older brother were oblivious to his behavior and attitude. It may have had to do with the language barrier though. Unfortunately though by the end of the movie the problems escalated and he ended up being expelled. Maybe if Souleymane had tried to figure out his problems out independently his future would of turned out differently.
Continuing with the issue of the teacher student relationship... I am going to contradict what I just said but in some ways it seems as if there really was no solution for Souleymane. I think the only way change could of occurred is if he wanted to change. It seems as if change was being forced upon him. I think with situations like this one it really depends on the student. How much they are willing to push themselves to succeed.
The scene that I mentioned before with the making of the self-portraits really seemed like it might of been a turning point for him. It looked as if he finally had discovered the feeling of accomplishment but I guess the events that took place after were sparked by things going on around him. There was no way to necessarily avoid these situations and the way he chose to deal with them had a negative impact on him.
Something that seemed very crucial to the schools philosophy was the number grades and the attitudes of the students. Whenever the teachers had a meeting and discussed the students these two concepts kept being brought up. While at SOF grades and attitudes are only a part of the picture. I feel as if the french teacher was more of a SOF teacher while the other teachers wanted to immediately give up on Souleymane. He wanted to hear what the students had to say and his class seemed very discussion based.
I am not sure if any of the ideas from the school in the movie should be incorporated into SOF. I think the fact that the students are able to voice their opinions is another similarity to our school. I think generally speaking though this movie was much more real than 'Blackboard Jungle' and other films based on that. Maybe that's why there isn't anything too much to incorporate within our school. Since a lot of schools are very much like The Class, Blackboard Jungle could almost be considered a fairy tale that always has a happy ending.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
HW 47
- It might be interesting to document each grade in SOF, including middle school. We could pick a subject and focus on it. We could then see the progress of the learning or the difference in grasping the attention, depending on the ages of the grade. (***)
- Adding on to the first bullet, after that was filmed we could have a make believe classroom of the similar ideas of Blackboard Jungle, and see if SOF lives up to that idea or if its very different.
- Adding on to the second bullet, Andy could be the "god" that came to SOF to save the souls of the public school kids. Mr. Fanning could play Mr. Fanning. (***)
- Props: Journals to change the students perspective on school and life.
- Have the "students" be recorded like on reality TV when they give the viewers an update on how they are feeling.
- One Student who is considered the leader of the class who everyone listens to.
- Mr. Kinory had students put on a presentation at parent teacher conferences to show the parents progress, could have something similar to that in movie. (***) - Before and After Effect.
- The teacher has to have very alternative teaching to the other teachers next door, could use Manley and Copeland as traditional teachers. (***)
- If the roof garden is opened during the filming could use it in scene to show alternative teaching.
- Start the movie with one of the students narrating, have them look back on high school, and them describing their experiences. (***)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
HW 46
As I have mentioned before on my blog, I am interning at Merricat's Preschool. The woman who founded the school, Gretchen Buchenholz is very recognized in the education system. Her ideas and philosophy's on school are quite similar to mine actually. For HW 46 I read a portion of Lighting the Way - Nine Women Who Changed Modern America by Karenna Core Schiff. In this novel Gretchen is honored for her work with not only Merricat's but many other preschools and other organizations she has founded. It discusses her ideas of creating all inclusion classrooms. "The policy today is to reserve one-third of the spots for homeless (or very poor) children, one-third for special needs children, and one-third for the typically developing children from families who can afford to pay. "It's a tricky formula, but we keep the faith," Gretchen says with a smile." (Page 395) Essentially the main idea of the text is to inform us of being able to accommodate a large variety of people within a classroom. That the things we learn at a very young age are extremely significant to later learning in life.
In my HW 42 I asked the question: How can you be a good worker in the future, if you can't interact with people in the present? I still believe that if you go to a school with no diversity in both race but also ability to learn, your going to be less capable on being open minded. I think what Gretchen is trying to do is make the children of the future well rounded people. Gretchen is thinking about others futures and being able to help them with their problems in the present. One of her ways of solving these problems, is promoting education to anyone and not discriminating against someone because of a learning disability. From both personal experience of going to Merricat's as a student and now interning, I can see the joy from these children's faces. The fact that they enjoy coming to school and being able to experience new things while learning is exactly what all early childhood development should strive for.
The description of Gretchen and her work seem quite similar to the ideas behind Blackboard Jungle... Gretchen is the ring leader of the teachers trying to make a difference within the educational system. As much as Blackboard Jungle and other films based on it, seem quite cliche of what schools are like, Gretchen in many ways has made it reality. She takes children with problems, without problems, and guides them to understand that regardless of your circumstances anyone who wants to learn, can. As much as doing homework, writing papers and taking tests is not an ideal way of spending my time I honestly think it pays off. The experiences we learn from day one guide us throughout our whole lives.
If school were eliminated completely would our brains develop the way they do? Or would they rot and would we die younger? By learning we are pushing ourselves to do something with our lives or be someone. Although we may not all be the president or the C.E.O of a company wherever we end up the skills we gained from school will probably be of at least some use. As we get older school honestly does get quite repetitive but its because we are so used to it. If we find ways to exceed our expectations and challenge our thinking then maybe it would be less boring. No one ever said life was going to be easy, and school is just a part of it...
Monday, March 22, 2010
HW 45
Both Hirsh and Sizer make excellent points. Although I think that Sizer’s ideas on teaching are a better preparation for the real world, I do believe certain aspects of Hirsch’s ideas could be of some use. In some ways people of the School of the Future, and other schools part of the Coalition of Essential Schools have had a taste of both worlds. Although my elementary school wasn’t completely based on standardized testing generally speaking it was much more than SOF. Hirsch is about the content of learning and being able to understand it earlier on. While Sizer thinks a more portfolio-based education actually allows the mind to truly learn.
Hirsh wants to make people that follow the path and are easy to keep under control. His ideas are very similar to the Prussian Education System, making people good soldiers and good factory workers. His ideas lead us to becoming mimicking robots that are good at retaining information and spitting it right back.
Sizer believed that real learning happened not by testing but by thinking. Being able to use alternative options in understanding content. Our school is an example of one of his ideas coming to life. We have eliminated regents and substituted them with exhibitions. While most kids become excellent at bubbling in circles we are exploring the Habits of Mind, and their reflection on our learning and thinking.
In this NY Times Article from 1996 written by Sara Mosle it discusses the ideas that Hirsch was trying to preach. “Progressive educators like Mr. Sizer contend that ''national standards'' will simply lead to more standardized testing. Mr. Hirsch recognizes the limitations of many standardized tests, and offers suggestions for making them both more nuanced and more comprehensive. And he cautions against state governments' using such tests as a ''blunt legislative instrument'' to impose reform; they must also provide the resources necessary to make meeting such standards possible. But Mr. Hirsch maintains that such tests are far fairer than more subjective means of assessing student performance, such as ''portfolios'' -- compilations of students' creative work -- which are currently in vogue.” What I think is interesting that over 10 years later Hirsh’s vision isn’t so unreal, the whole “No Child Left Behind” seems to have elements of his message. The idea that an elementary standardized test is given to evaluate the child’s knowledge seems crazy.
I do not completely disagree with what Hirsch is saying but I think it could be tweaked slightly. I do think that it is important in early childhood development for children to be exposed to content in both math and science. If one child really seemed to grasp the information and understand it then maybe later on in life they will decide to pursue a career in it. I do not think though that this set curriculum should stay within an education the whole time. I also do not believe a test can measure the ability of ones knowledge. Certain skills though that are used in preparing for tests could be incorporated within a classroom. The ability to remember what you learned yesterday, and be able to know it so well you could teach someone else. But by at least High School is when the Sizer way should come into play. As Sizer said: “Inspiration, hunger: these are the qualities that drive good schools. The best we educational planners can do is to create the most likely conditions for them to flourish, and then get out of their way.” I think what he was trying to do was to make learning something exciting and what students looked forward to. While Hirsch didn’t think about the students ideas and more so his own. Sizer wanted to give students a blank canvas and let the imagination go, while Hirsch gave the students a coloring book.
Monday, March 15, 2010
HW 44
I hate to admit it but I was blown away by what Obama said. Although I am a Obama fan, I am not a fan of the way the education system is set up. I think what he was saying was actually quite inspiring and made me want to push myself to my goals. He ensured us that there is a spot for every single one of us. My only disagreement is if one student goes to a SUNY and the other one goes to an Ivy, who is honestly really going to get the job? I know that Obama wants us all to succeed and become the leaders of tomorrow but I think he forgets that our culture and institutions are so socially divided. The student who had to work a job to support their families throughout High School, and could of got very good grades but didn't have the opportunity to is probably not going to end up at a school like Harvard or Colombia. I would rather have a leader that had experience being normal and not someone who has always been very privileged.
Something very ironic that I realized about the Liberal Arts Education was the school focused on is a very conservative, republican school. Since a Liberal Arts school offers more opportunity to explore a variety of subjects, these students are being influenced to find love in one of them. My point being that wealthy college students are intended on filling positions in both science and the government. It is as if the institutions are planning ahead of who is going to replace the current leaders. So that the rich stay on top and everyone below them does the mediocre work. I mean why is it that the leaders of today feel the need to continue this lifestyle if their not going to be here forever?
Lastly the article I read was "Where the bar ought to be". I was discussing it with Melissa and it seems as if Ms. Kenny has the right idea for education. Instead of turning kids into robots who can spit back information you just clocked into their brains, they actually know how to use them. Her philosophy seems very similar to our school. Being able to take what we learn in the classroom and apply it to what we do in the real world. Being able to communicate with any sort of person regardless of their social class. Are students of the private institutions being taught to live by the same standards? If they are the ones expected to have lifestyles that fulfill these goals is the material being taught to them now really going to help them? Or is it just giving everyone around them the illusion that they have the capability of fulfilling the jobs presented to them?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
HW 42
How can you be a good worker in the future, if you can't interact with people in the present?
I think it is disgusting that our social classes and schooling separates us. The fact that the more privileged end up filling the big guys shoes. I think something very important learned in school is communication. I would rather have someone in office who has the experience of working with people who are from different backgrounds, different neighborhoods and different religions. How can we put someone in office who is used to being around the same race and lifestyle their whole lives? How they can connect to average people when they consider themselves so elite?
One of my private school friends refuses to apply to SUNY schools because she claims that she has worked to hard to go to a school that is for average people. The fact is the people that go to SUNYs and go to public school I truly believe are so much more down to earth and real. They have a better sense of what goes on in the real world, and understand that you have to work to get to your goals. If she came to SOF I think she would be really intimated by everyone and wouldn't know how to communicate. She is used to everyone around her being just like her, and if per say she were to become part of the governmental system how would she be able to connect to this country. I feel as if private schools train the students to be top leaders of the future but these so called leaders have no idea how the rest of the country runs.
I think there is a solution to both private and public education. This is experience. A memory of something is much more likely to stick with you and turn on and off when needed. I think by 9th grade you should be able to have a sense of what you would like to do with your life. Instead of wasting four years in a classroom behind a desk I think the learning should begin in a real setting. Lets say you were learning something in Biology class about fish, and it was coming out of a text book. If in four years from then your in college trying to decide what you want to do, and you realize Biology is your calling, are you really going to remember the information from the text book? Or will you remember that morning on the boat when you watched a school of fish swim by and observed them?
I am not saying that school is completely unnecessary I just think the system needs to be revised. I don't think it should be so separated and there should be more real life experiences. I think the fact that SOF has internships makes a little more advanced. What I do in my internship actually leaves a mark on me and I am learning so much from younger children. If for all our classes we could go out and explore each subject then it would be easier to figure out what our likes and dislikes are.
Monday, February 22, 2010
HW 41
1.
NY Times Web 17 February 2010 In 2011 there will be an opportunity for students after two years of High school to take a test and receive their diplomas. In which after they will be able to continue on to school in local community colleges. This new system has already been introduced to Denmark, England, Finland, France and Singapore. In the states of Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont, certain students will be able to be apart of this new way of education.
I think this a very well thought out plan. For many students they find themselves quite bored in school. Maybe not because of the structure of the teaching but simply because they are ready for bigger challenges. If the opportunity of finishing High School early and being able to continue on to college earlier was offered to me, that seems like plenty of motivation alone. By motivation I mean that maybe students would work harder to meet that goal. Personally I know I could of done better in my 9th and 10th grade years and if I were to have had this sort of opportunity I just might of.
2. (Additional Works Consulted)
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/06/15/nyregion/06162009TEACHER_index.html?ref=education in relation to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/nyregion/16teachers.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/06/15/nyregion/06162009TEACHER_index.html?ref=education in relation to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/nyregion/16teachers.html?_r=1
3.
Alvarez, Lizette "New York City Valedictorians Prepare for the Future"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/nyregion/28valedictorians.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/nyregion/28valedictorians.html
NY Times Web, 26 June 2009
This article published in the early summer of last year had both a corky attitude about it but also real feeling about it. The kids who were a part of it were all top of their class. Most of them broke 2000 on their SAT and all were going to very well regarded colleges. Something that struck me though was the personal comments made by each student. They discussed things from Obama to what they said for their graduation speeches and how they were feeling about graduating.
I choose this article because I think in some ways it shows that a lot of these kids could probably do something really great tomorrow. But as a alternative to my topic might still need even more education to make a even stronger difference in the world. It seems that they are all very well spoken and have certainly not taken their educations as a walk in the park. I think what is so great about this is the fact that they are from NYC and it is easy to relate to them on a personal level, to understand exactly where they are coming from.
4. (Additional Works Consulted)
5.
Anonymous, "Education: Going to School at Sea"
Time Magazine Online, 28 January, 1980
This article describes a program offered to students in college to live on a boat for a semester. It is for people who are liberal arts majors or interested in learning about the ocean. Essentially it is a classroom experiment that you are apart of. The students hardly get any sleep because they are either doing experiments or making sure the boat is running smoothly.
I am glad that Andy mentioned this article because it ties in perfectly with my idea of stopping school and actually using our tools in the real world. In my interview of myself I talked about how I am working with younger children. Although I feel as though they should go to school to learn about emotional aspects and working with other people at a certain point how much more of that can we really learn? I think this program is a great idea because you are still learning but it is completely hands on and gives you an experience so that what you learn will actually stick with you.
6. (Additional Works Consulted
http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/advice/
7.
Gallagher, Teresa , "Alternatives in Education - The Other Side of ADD" http://borntoexplore.org/addsvs.htm BTE - Born to Explore, 1997
In Summary, this independently run website is preaching the idea that there is a link between the system of US Education and ADD. The United States bases there educational system off the German. Germany's Schooling was to make better factory workers and better solders. There system seemed to be quite successful so we copied them as well as many countries. The only difference between us and them is that we didn't want our students to be illiterate.
Considering the fact that ADD is the most over diagnosed disorder it probably has very little to do with the brains and more with the similarity between most schools. If in most schools being yelled at and training for jobs is the main focus how can children explore their creative imagination. Just as it is described in the website, how can people focus if what they are learning has no interest to them? Or further more has no time for exploration in thinking topics?
8. (Additional Works Consulted)
http://www.ctcl.org/about/book
9.
Anonymous, "Prussian Education System" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system Wikipedia, 30 November 2009
In relation to the link about Alternatives in Education, this is a more information about the Prussian Education System. The system the United States education is based off of. In this characteristics I find it so interesting that this system was created in the 19th Century. Even though this country claims to have changed so much for the better Education is one of those things that really hasn't changed.
This is what the education system was described as two centuries ago: The Prussian system instituted compulsory attendance, specific training for teachers, national testing for all students (used to classify children for potential job training), national curriculum set for each grade, and mandatory kindergarten. It sounds very similar to how the system is run today. So much change...if we know it isn't working then why do we continue to follow it...so that our military stays in line? So we are obedient people who follow the system?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
