As second semester juniors, our focus has somewhat shifted toward colleges and the application process. Advisers, teachers, and guidance counselors are emphasizing the importance of grades and "extra-curricular activities". My guidance counselor has noted that extra-curricular activities are just as important as grades, and I have heard from numerous reliable sources that in order to get into some top schools you must actively participate and excel in a high school sport.
I found this news somewhat shocking. I think that, quite frankly, it is quite a rip-off that most people must be involved in a sport in order to get accepted into a top school. What about those kids who aren't interested in sports? I don't see how COLLEGE (the place whose main focus is teaching academic rigor and preparing students for graduate school) admissions should be based off of something that isn't really related to learning. Although sports may make campus life more fun and entertaining, they have nothing to do with academics, the major focus of college.
Recently, these extra-curricular activities have been deemed just as important as grades. Personally, I am involved in quite a few extra-curricular activities (none of which are sports), and I really enjoy them. But aside from my personal bias, I don't think it's fair to weight non-academics just as much as actual academics and SAT/ACT scores. Colleges say that they want students who have good "time management." And they're failing to consider the whole concept that people have other non extra-curricular activity-related commitments that force them to balance their time wisely. For instance, say someone is on the basketball team, and practice is each night for 1 hour. This hour has been taken away from the student's homework time, so he must manage the rest of the night wisely. Now, say that there's another student who drives and picks up his/her sibling to and from piano lessons. Let's say that the place where the sibling gets his/her lesson is 15 minutes away from the house. So, you drive the sibling there and then return home, using up 30 minutes. When the lesson ends, you pick up the sibling and come back home, which takes another 30 minutes. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU BOTH USED UP AN HOUR OF YOUR TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE REASON, AND MUST BALANCE THE REST OF THE EVENING WISELY. You see, it seems like colleges fail to take this into account. Now on the college resumes, the first student is going to say that he/she was on the basketball team. But the second one can't say, "I drove and picked up my brother/sister to and from piano lessons." That's not going to fly. It doesn't matter how the hour was spent; the point is that both of these students need to manage their time wisely.
What do you think?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Referendum: Good or Bad?
Recently, the New Trier Administration has spent much time trying to explain the "referendum" to parents and students. Today during advisory, we went and saw Dr. Dohrer's very persuasive speech about what the "newly constructed" NTHS is supposed to look like and all of its "advantages" that the current NTHS lacks. Some people were convinced whereas others were not. I have seen many lawn signs either supporting or refuting the referendum, so there are plenty of people who feel passionately about their beliefs regarding the referendum.
I must say, the NTHS Administration is being very partial in their claims. It is pretty evident that they want this referendum, as they over-exaggerate the current conditions of the school and spend very little time addressing the MAJOR tax increase that would occur should the majority of the people vote in favor of the referendum. Additionally, the administration is ambiguous in many of its claims. They have never addressed specifically how the referendum will improve the ability to use technology in classrooms (why, in every current classroom there is an overhead projector, computer, etc.). In a poorly-written letter to the parents, they said that some American Studies classes had to be conducted in an art room due to lack of space. I have NEVER heard of such a thing; first of all, I do not believe that there currently are any AS classes conducted in art rooms. I know many people in 4- and 9- level AS, and they are in a regular classroom on the 4th floor. Maybe once 3 years ago there was an AS class in an art room. Furthermore, I don't see how this is a problem. Students should be able to learn effectively no matter where they are - it could be in a garage. I don't see how the classroom itself interferes with the teacher's ability to TEACH the material well.
I am not so much attacking the referendum itself, just the administration's partiality. I do think that the new library, cafeteria, and gyms are much needed. But I don't know if it's worth it given the tremendous tax increase. I have not fully decided what I want (even though I don't even get to vote!). But I do think that it would be better if the administration disregarded its personal wishes when trying to explain the referendum to people.
What do you think?
I must say, the NTHS Administration is being very partial in their claims. It is pretty evident that they want this referendum, as they over-exaggerate the current conditions of the school and spend very little time addressing the MAJOR tax increase that would occur should the majority of the people vote in favor of the referendum. Additionally, the administration is ambiguous in many of its claims. They have never addressed specifically how the referendum will improve the ability to use technology in classrooms (why, in every current classroom there is an overhead projector, computer, etc.). In a poorly-written letter to the parents, they said that some American Studies classes had to be conducted in an art room due to lack of space. I have NEVER heard of such a thing; first of all, I do not believe that there currently are any AS classes conducted in art rooms. I know many people in 4- and 9- level AS, and they are in a regular classroom on the 4th floor. Maybe once 3 years ago there was an AS class in an art room. Furthermore, I don't see how this is a problem. Students should be able to learn effectively no matter where they are - it could be in a garage. I don't see how the classroom itself interferes with the teacher's ability to TEACH the material well.
I am not so much attacking the referendum itself, just the administration's partiality. I do think that the new library, cafeteria, and gyms are much needed. But I don't know if it's worth it given the tremendous tax increase. I have not fully decided what I want (even though I don't even get to vote!). But I do think that it would be better if the administration disregarded its personal wishes when trying to explain the referendum to people.
What do you think?
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
The Truth About Multiple-Choice Tests
Earlier this week in American Studies, we spent a little bit of class time discussing multiple-choice tests. Essentially, we answered the question: Are multiple-choice tests an EFFECTIVE way of assessing one's knowledge? Multiple-choice tests are commonly used in school, but also for standardized achievement tests (like the ACT and SAT). Basically, many who work in the field of education believe that multiple-choice tests are great ways to test kids' knowledge.
On the other hand, I think that nowadays multiple-choice tests are horrible ways of testing kids' knowledge. I appreciate the whole idea, which is essentially to help kids by giving them all possible answer options so that they know that the answer is right in front of them somewhere and do not have to answer questions in their own words. But nowadays, educators have taken these tests to the next level. They put in so many tricks, awkwardly-worded questions, as well as the awful, horrible "mark all that apply" questions. I hope that these teachers realize that they are defeating the whole purpose of multiple-choice tests! They aren't even testing kids' knowledge; they are simply thinking of sly ways to trick the students! I thought that there was only supposed to be ONE answer, but these stupid "mark all that apply" questions break that rule! And the bad thing is that teachers don't even give partial credit for the "mark all that apply" questions - you either get it all right or all wrong.
I do believe that it is fair to put some trick questions on tests. But I think that they should be put on the short response/show your work section of the test so that kids can get partial credit. I am a big fan of partial credit (If you understand the problem and get it partially right, you should get some credit!), and the problem with multiple-choice tests is that they deny students the ability to receive partial credit.
What do you think?
On the other hand, I think that nowadays multiple-choice tests are horrible ways of testing kids' knowledge. I appreciate the whole idea, which is essentially to help kids by giving them all possible answer options so that they know that the answer is right in front of them somewhere and do not have to answer questions in their own words. But nowadays, educators have taken these tests to the next level. They put in so many tricks, awkwardly-worded questions, as well as the awful, horrible "mark all that apply" questions. I hope that these teachers realize that they are defeating the whole purpose of multiple-choice tests! They aren't even testing kids' knowledge; they are simply thinking of sly ways to trick the students! I thought that there was only supposed to be ONE answer, but these stupid "mark all that apply" questions break that rule! And the bad thing is that teachers don't even give partial credit for the "mark all that apply" questions - you either get it all right or all wrong.
I do believe that it is fair to put some trick questions on tests. But I think that they should be put on the short response/show your work section of the test so that kids can get partial credit. I am a big fan of partial credit (If you understand the problem and get it partially right, you should get some credit!), and the problem with multiple-choice tests is that they deny students the ability to receive partial credit.
What do you think?
Friday, December 18, 2009
Child Sent to Principal for Writing Rush for President
Not so long ago, at an elementary school in the Jacksonville, Florida area, the administration made a survey wherein they asked the students whom they would have wanted to be elected for president: Obama, McCain, or other. One of the students replied "other" and specifically wrote down "Rush Baugh" (he meant Rush Limbaugh, obviously); consequently, he was sent to the principal and his mother was called in. The administration told her that it was inappropriate for her son to write that and that she "shouldn't be throwing [her] views on him."
HOW INAPPROPRIATE IS THIS? Seriously? First of all, why would you ask 10-year-olds whom they want for president? I mean, they're 10 YEARS OLD; what do they know about politics? And, some of the kids do choose Rush Limbaugh, how is that a problem? YOU'RE THE ONES WHO ASKED THEM! (Not you, I mean the school...) I bet that if the kid had written Keith Olbermann, the school wouldn't have cared.
Maybe I'm overreacting. But still, it annoys me to see people (especially youth) undergo discrimination for being Conservative. The public schools are responsible for much of this anti-Conservative bigotry. And I thought it was their job to remain unbiased, not brainwash kids to the left.
What do you think?
HOW INAPPROPRIATE IS THIS? Seriously? First of all, why would you ask 10-year-olds whom they want for president? I mean, they're 10 YEARS OLD; what do they know about politics? And, some of the kids do choose Rush Limbaugh, how is that a problem? YOU'RE THE ONES WHO ASKED THEM! (Not you, I mean the school...) I bet that if the kid had written Keith Olbermann, the school wouldn't have cared.
Maybe I'm overreacting. But still, it annoys me to see people (especially youth) undergo discrimination for being Conservative. The public schools are responsible for much of this anti-Conservative bigotry. And I thought it was their job to remain unbiased, not brainwash kids to the left.
What do you think?
Friday, December 11, 2009
Is English More Important Than Math?
I saw on the graduation requirements for New Trier that is it necessary to take 4 years of English but only 3 years of mathematics. I thought that this was rather weird because I've always been told that math and English are the most important subjects that you can learn in school. But if this is truly the case, why isn't there a 4-year math requirement here?
English is extremely important, especially at the high school level. We learn how to compose analytical essays relating to the literature that we read. Learning how to read in between the lines (read on a deeper level) and write persuasive and cohesive papers is something that we will need to use for the rest of our lives. But whether you realize it or not, you will use the skills learned in math (I don't mean simple computation) in the real world as well. Math really teaches you how to think, how to solve real-world application problems, the step-by-step procedures of using logic, something that everyone needs. Memorizing really long formulas is not the point of math (unfortunately some people think it is); the point is to teach kids how to think logically.
Essentially, English teaches kids how to read, write, and argue. Math helps kids in solving real-world problems that require the use of logic. It seems like they are both equally important to me; therefore, there should be a 4-year math graduation requirement here at New Trier. But the thing about English is, even though many people speak it or are learning how to speak it, not everyone does. But math is a "universal" language - it doesn't take any certain language to understand the concepts of mathematics (so anyone can "speak math"!).
So what do you think? Is English more important than math? Should this graduation requirement be changed?
English is extremely important, especially at the high school level. We learn how to compose analytical essays relating to the literature that we read. Learning how to read in between the lines (read on a deeper level) and write persuasive and cohesive papers is something that we will need to use for the rest of our lives. But whether you realize it or not, you will use the skills learned in math (I don't mean simple computation) in the real world as well. Math really teaches you how to think, how to solve real-world application problems, the step-by-step procedures of using logic, something that everyone needs. Memorizing really long formulas is not the point of math (unfortunately some people think it is); the point is to teach kids how to think logically.
Essentially, English teaches kids how to read, write, and argue. Math helps kids in solving real-world problems that require the use of logic. It seems like they are both equally important to me; therefore, there should be a 4-year math graduation requirement here at New Trier. But the thing about English is, even though many people speak it or are learning how to speak it, not everyone does. But math is a "universal" language - it doesn't take any certain language to understand the concepts of mathematics (so anyone can "speak math"!).
So what do you think? Is English more important than math? Should this graduation requirement be changed?
Friday, December 4, 2009
Stop Illegal Immigration
I think that it's seriously about time to stop illegal immigration. I haven't seen much of an attempt to do this because many people don't realize that it is nothing but a detriment to our nation's economy and safety. The one politician whom I trust that has the capability of fixing this problem is Mitt Romney. He has a wonderful plan basically saying that if you stop giving them food, money, and jobs, they'll leave! I mean, seriously, is it that hard to understand? One of the problems I had with the Bush Administration is that they did not do enough to attempt to stop illegal immigration.
Since 1996, our nation has had to pay approximately $400,000,000,000 for social services for illegals. We are obviously in a tremendous amount of debt right now, and the last thing we need is to be paying 400 billion dollars for people who shouldn't even be here! Also, they are responsible for taking over 11 million SKILLED jobs. Now, pardon me for believing that these jobs should be handed over to the many, many unemployed legals in America who are willing to work hard. I mean, after all, they are the ones who live here legally. Additionally, since 1996 we have had to pay about 15 billion dollars for their education (K-12), which is incredibly unfair. We could have used all of this money to better the educational programs on which some schools need improvement.
The crime rate and drug trafficking has severely increased due to illegal immigrants. There are around 730,000 illegal alien fugitives. Many of the members of some of our nation's most vicious gangs that traffic drugs are illegals. The cost of incarcerations of illegal immigrants since 2001 is approximately $1,500,000,000. Plus, I watch America's Most Wanted sometimes, and many of the criminals wanted are illegal aliens.
Please don't misinterpret my argument. I am not against immigration, just illegal immigration. I just want to show you how detrimental it really is. If you want to come to America, please join us. But do so legally, and learn English.
(Note: these statistics were taken from an illegal immigration hotwire, immigrationcounters.com)
Since 1996, our nation has had to pay approximately $400,000,000,000 for social services for illegals. We are obviously in a tremendous amount of debt right now, and the last thing we need is to be paying 400 billion dollars for people who shouldn't even be here! Also, they are responsible for taking over 11 million SKILLED jobs. Now, pardon me for believing that these jobs should be handed over to the many, many unemployed legals in America who are willing to work hard. I mean, after all, they are the ones who live here legally. Additionally, since 1996 we have had to pay about 15 billion dollars for their education (K-12), which is incredibly unfair. We could have used all of this money to better the educational programs on which some schools need improvement.
The crime rate and drug trafficking has severely increased due to illegal immigrants. There are around 730,000 illegal alien fugitives. Many of the members of some of our nation's most vicious gangs that traffic drugs are illegals. The cost of incarcerations of illegal immigrants since 2001 is approximately $1,500,000,000. Plus, I watch America's Most Wanted sometimes, and many of the criminals wanted are illegal aliens.
Please don't misinterpret my argument. I am not against immigration, just illegal immigration. I just want to show you how detrimental it really is. If you want to come to America, please join us. But do so legally, and learn English.
(Note: these statistics were taken from an illegal immigration hotwire, immigrationcounters.com)
Friday, November 27, 2009
Capital Punishment
Something tragic just happened in Florida. During a family celebration on Thanksgiving, a man shot his twin sisters, aunt, and 6-year-old cousin to death. This is obviously not the first time that something like this has happened, and it is not a pleasant thing to think about. But after I hear about these events occurring time and time again, I think about the appropriate consequences of these evil deeds. Should there be a death penalty?
Personally, I believe that there should be a death penalty. Well, it should only be used for very SERIOUS crimes–which would involve the death of at least 1 person–and there must be absolute 100% evidence that the criminal is guilty. This "absolute evidence" would entitle the use of DNA, fingerprinting, video cameras, witnesses, etc.
Let's look at Saddam Hussein. The man killed his entire soccer team for losing. He put his own people into plastic shredders. He ended up killing a grand total of approximately 200,000 of his own people. Now, this man is the definition of evil. As we probably all know, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by the Iraqi court. I personally think that the death penalty in this case is well deserved, but some people disagree with me. I mean, after Hussein committed all of those evil crimes, why should we have to pay for his cable TV in prison? Why should we have to pay for the many meals he will be eating in prison? It just doesn't make sense to me. For one, I think that if you are truly as evil as Hussein you don't deserve to live. And even if you were to live, you shouldn't be given such luxuries as cable television.
What do you think?
Personally, I believe that there should be a death penalty. Well, it should only be used for very SERIOUS crimes–which would involve the death of at least 1 person–and there must be absolute 100% evidence that the criminal is guilty. This "absolute evidence" would entitle the use of DNA, fingerprinting, video cameras, witnesses, etc.
Let's look at Saddam Hussein. The man killed his entire soccer team for losing. He put his own people into plastic shredders. He ended up killing a grand total of approximately 200,000 of his own people. Now, this man is the definition of evil. As we probably all know, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by the Iraqi court. I personally think that the death penalty in this case is well deserved, but some people disagree with me. I mean, after Hussein committed all of those evil crimes, why should we have to pay for his cable TV in prison? Why should we have to pay for the many meals he will be eating in prison? It just doesn't make sense to me. For one, I think that if you are truly as evil as Hussein you don't deserve to live. And even if you were to live, you shouldn't be given such luxuries as cable television.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
