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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
