I've been thinking recently about high school graduation. Watching my friends getting ready to graduate, and watching how they deal with it. Watching those around me that are younger than me watching the seniors in my school, and how much they want to be like them.
Its a slightly humbling, as well as menancholy experience. Its also regretful, because unlike most of those around me, I am not particularly invested in the high school experience. I can see how others around me are going out and doing things with themselves that I could have done. I certainly have the potential.
But the sad fact is, I have no desire to do so. I would rather be awake, paying attention, and to be learning than to be blinded by my parents opinions, to be invested in drama, who's dating who, or what tv show or fashion is in style. The thought of being like that is contrary to my core beliefs. But they do have fun. There's no denying that.
So while some of my friends are busy becoming student officers, taking 'leadership' positions, and studying hard, I'm sitting back, playing the system, and thinking about how to break it. At least, as far as I'm concerned. Because the system certainly is broken, and is in desperate need of fixing.
Who has the integrity to fix it, instead of tipping it even more in their favor?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Lost Post
I had a post mostly written out for today, but I messed around with a couple settings on my computer, as nerds are want to do, and it crashed. Obviously this was slightly frustrating, but I'm not really too broken up about it. However, it does mean that I'm not going to put the time into rewriting it today, since I want to sleep.
I did learn something from this though; finish writing important documents before you fiddle with important settings, and you wont waste important time.
If you'll forgive me sounding slightly preachy, you just have to think about what you want to learn from things.
I did learn something from this though; finish writing important documents before you fiddle with important settings, and you wont waste important time.
If you'll forgive me sounding slightly preachy, you just have to think about what you want to learn from things.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Friends
What makes a good friend?
Someone that will stick by you no matter what? Someone that will love you unconditionally no matter what you do to them or to someone else? No matter what other people say about you? No matter how many other friends you make? Someone that realizes you aren't always your best you?
I'm not going to answer those questions, just think about them.
Is it acceptable for someone who is supposed to be your friend to treat your best friend like garbage when you are right there, but can't actually hear what's going on? What would you do if your best friend won't even tell you what they said?
Would a good friend talk to them?
What good would it do to start talking to your other friends about them, if it will only make things harder in the end?
Someone that will stick by you no matter what? Someone that will love you unconditionally no matter what you do to them or to someone else? No matter what other people say about you? No matter how many other friends you make? Someone that realizes you aren't always your best you?
I'm not going to answer those questions, just think about them.
Is it acceptable for someone who is supposed to be your friend to treat your best friend like garbage when you are right there, but can't actually hear what's going on? What would you do if your best friend won't even tell you what they said?
Would a good friend talk to them?
What good would it do to start talking to your other friends about them, if it will only make things harder in the end?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Free Speech
What is free speech? No, I know, its the freedom to speak freely, that's not what I'm asking. What is free speech?
Is it being told by my English teacher that we must willingly submit to at least some censorship? Incidentally, that was the last English class I took.
What our debate was about was a disagreement over my score when I told her that based upon her own system, that opinions couldn't be wrong, she had no grounds for marking me down. Ironically enough she then fell victim to Godwin's Law. I'm not certain why my analysis of Fahrenheit 451 warranted a comparison of that level, but evidently it did.
Why was I being told that my opinion was wrong because it disagreed with hers, if free speech is the expression of opposing viewpoints? Why is it the same way with radical left and right wing partisans? Why do they berate and attack any disagreement with how they see things in an effort to suppress it? Why was I being marked down for not agreeing to be censored, when the presentation of that disagreement was beyond reproach in its technical aspects? Why is it that if politicians cannot find a legitimate argument against one policy or standpoint they immediately revert to attacks on the character of the opposition? Should my past really matter in a scientific forum?
The point of the course was to learn to use the English language, wasn't it? Why then, if I was mechanically accurate to the graded subject should my opinion matter in regards to my score?
Is that free speech?
Is it being told by my English teacher that we must willingly submit to at least some censorship? Incidentally, that was the last English class I took.
What our debate was about was a disagreement over my score when I told her that based upon her own system, that opinions couldn't be wrong, she had no grounds for marking me down. Ironically enough she then fell victim to Godwin's Law. I'm not certain why my analysis of Fahrenheit 451 warranted a comparison of that level, but evidently it did.
Why was I being told that my opinion was wrong because it disagreed with hers, if free speech is the expression of opposing viewpoints? Why is it the same way with radical left and right wing partisans? Why do they berate and attack any disagreement with how they see things in an effort to suppress it? Why was I being marked down for not agreeing to be censored, when the presentation of that disagreement was beyond reproach in its technical aspects? Why is it that if politicians cannot find a legitimate argument against one policy or standpoint they immediately revert to attacks on the character of the opposition? Should my past really matter in a scientific forum?
The point of the course was to learn to use the English language, wasn't it? Why then, if I was mechanically accurate to the graded subject should my opinion matter in regards to my score?
Is that free speech?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Global Warming Swindle Debate
Whether you believe in global warming or not, this is an interesting video. The link is to part one of eight, not counting part zero, which isn't working anyway. Be advised--this will take roughly an hour and a half.
Some things to take into account while watching these.
First of all, something I noticed right away is that the ratio of skeptics to supporters of global warming is skewed in favor of the supporters. In an unbiased debate, shouldn't those numbers be equal? Besides that, the host himself appears to be in favor of global warming. Is that really conducive to an open and scientific debate? A mediator should be exactly that; a mediator.
Second of all, rarely is it possible to have an open discussion, especially a scientific one, when someone is told they are wrong or false immediately after they state a fact. By all means, correct them but what good does it do to interrupt them? Even if they are basing their stance on incorrect facts you might still learn something valuable in the process of listening to them that will better help you understand your own viewpoint. Isn't the point of science, to better understand the world? Far better then is to let them state their point, and then correct them. You're far more likely to receive a favorable reaction this way as well.
There are a couple of points I found were rather eloquently delivered. At about 1:40-2:10 in part 3, 1:20-1:35 in part 4. Notice in part three the host has no way to actually answer the question leveled at him, and so goes back to the old standby. "We don't have enough time," despite the fact that this is only about a half an hour into the program.
Something else, the range of data given in this video is rather narrow, both in favor of and in opposition to global warming. A few of the same works are cited again and again, leaving out the vast depth of arguably more viable papers and findings.
Whatever your viewpoint on global warming this is a video I would recommend watching. Good points are made on both sides of the issues. The question then becomes, what do you agree with? Which side seems more logical? Why do you think global warming has become such a mainstream issue, and why are arguments against it quashed so religiously by the media? Isn't that contrary to the scientific process?
Some things to take into account while watching these.
First of all, something I noticed right away is that the ratio of skeptics to supporters of global warming is skewed in favor of the supporters. In an unbiased debate, shouldn't those numbers be equal? Besides that, the host himself appears to be in favor of global warming. Is that really conducive to an open and scientific debate? A mediator should be exactly that; a mediator.
Second of all, rarely is it possible to have an open discussion, especially a scientific one, when someone is told they are wrong or false immediately after they state a fact. By all means, correct them but what good does it do to interrupt them? Even if they are basing their stance on incorrect facts you might still learn something valuable in the process of listening to them that will better help you understand your own viewpoint. Isn't the point of science, to better understand the world? Far better then is to let them state their point, and then correct them. You're far more likely to receive a favorable reaction this way as well.
There are a couple of points I found were rather eloquently delivered. At about 1:40-2:10 in part 3, 1:20-1:35 in part 4. Notice in part three the host has no way to actually answer the question leveled at him, and so goes back to the old standby. "We don't have enough time," despite the fact that this is only about a half an hour into the program.
Something else, the range of data given in this video is rather narrow, both in favor of and in opposition to global warming. A few of the same works are cited again and again, leaving out the vast depth of arguably more viable papers and findings.
Whatever your viewpoint on global warming this is a video I would recommend watching. Good points are made on both sides of the issues. The question then becomes, what do you agree with? Which side seems more logical? Why do you think global warming has become such a mainstream issue, and why are arguments against it quashed so religiously by the media? Isn't that contrary to the scientific process?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
0%
I found myself wandering around the internet when I stumbled upon a fairly interesting article.
According to this article the average score that today's top science students would have gotten on tests administered in 1965 is 0%. Now before you go crazy and start lobbying your local political leaders to have me shot for heresy or something equally ridiculous, lets take a look at a couple things.
First of all, based solely on this article the logical conclusion would be that our school systems are in serious trouble. Epic Fail to quote the internet. What kind of shape are our children in if they can't pass the tests their grandparents were? The article states that the farther back you went, the lower the average score was.
However, just a couple things I'd like to point out. First of all, if you'll notice, this is a UK publication. Therefore, as much as the internet makes us into a global community, its extremely important to remember that not only can situations vary culturally from country to country, but so can educational standards and procedures. This would lead us to question how similar the situation is. Would America's top students test similarly? Would they be taking the same tests, or the UK's American counterparts? How would that affect the scored results?
Additionally, one must question the reputation of the publication in and of itself, unless you're asking to be deceived. Through very quick research (isn't Wikipedia great? We'll cover their validity later, thank you.) I was able to determine that the publication in question leans to the political left, but still has right wing articles, writers, and editorials. Make of that what you will, since I'm not going to tell you what to think about political affiliations. The Independent also is generally reputable, but there have been cases of baseless accusations. Is this article one of those times?
Something to pay attention to about this article, there is no bibliographical citation. Granted, there are mentions of things an enlightened reader could follow up on, such as the organization which administered the tests, but we are not told the exact means used to create the test, merely a general conglomeration for the layman.
Now, I am aware of the general disinterest in such things, but shouldn't they at least be made available for those who wish to pursue them? Am I reading too much into this in an effort to have the most balanced and well rounded opinion possible? Likely.
The reason I'm placing so much stress in this instances is because I linked to this article on my facebook page, and one of my teachers commented on it. Rather than immediately dismiss his opinion and cautious approach on the subject because of an opposing viewpoint, I chose to follow up. His statements were valid, and if I refuse to listen to them, how will I learn?
And isn't learning the point?
According to this article the average score that today's top science students would have gotten on tests administered in 1965 is 0%. Now before you go crazy and start lobbying your local political leaders to have me shot for heresy or something equally ridiculous, lets take a look at a couple things.
First of all, based solely on this article the logical conclusion would be that our school systems are in serious trouble. Epic Fail to quote the internet. What kind of shape are our children in if they can't pass the tests their grandparents were? The article states that the farther back you went, the lower the average score was.
However, just a couple things I'd like to point out. First of all, if you'll notice, this is a UK publication. Therefore, as much as the internet makes us into a global community, its extremely important to remember that not only can situations vary culturally from country to country, but so can educational standards and procedures. This would lead us to question how similar the situation is. Would America's top students test similarly? Would they be taking the same tests, or the UK's American counterparts? How would that affect the scored results?
Additionally, one must question the reputation of the publication in and of itself, unless you're asking to be deceived. Through very quick research (isn't Wikipedia great? We'll cover their validity later, thank you.) I was able to determine that the publication in question leans to the political left, but still has right wing articles, writers, and editorials. Make of that what you will, since I'm not going to tell you what to think about political affiliations. The Independent also is generally reputable, but there have been cases of baseless accusations. Is this article one of those times?
Something to pay attention to about this article, there is no bibliographical citation. Granted, there are mentions of things an enlightened reader could follow up on, such as the organization which administered the tests, but we are not told the exact means used to create the test, merely a general conglomeration for the layman.
Now, I am aware of the general disinterest in such things, but shouldn't they at least be made available for those who wish to pursue them? Am I reading too much into this in an effort to have the most balanced and well rounded opinion possible? Likely.
The reason I'm placing so much stress in this instances is because I linked to this article on my facebook page, and one of my teachers commented on it. Rather than immediately dismiss his opinion and cautious approach on the subject because of an opposing viewpoint, I chose to follow up. His statements were valid, and if I refuse to listen to them, how will I learn?
And isn't learning the point?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Why School Is Bad
Why School Is Bad For Kids
This article brings up a very good point; the school system is not so much broken as grossly misdirected. What good do grades actually accomplish? Why are kids so poorly motivated? Why do they see so little reason to remain focused or to work hard? Why do they hate learning in so many different instances?
Perhaps we should try to learn something from children. I can quite clearly remember the feeling of curiosity, and happiness, that I used to have when I learned something new. Now I sit there through lecture after lecture, wondering why we never go over Hisenburg's Uncertainty Principle or quantum mechanics.
Do you know how many times I've been told we don't cover something because it isn't on the state core? Shouldn't I decide what I want to learn, not what some bureaucrat wants me to?
Isn't that the way schools used to be?
This article brings up a very good point; the school system is not so much broken as grossly misdirected. What good do grades actually accomplish? Why are kids so poorly motivated? Why do they see so little reason to remain focused or to work hard? Why do they hate learning in so many different instances?
Perhaps we should try to learn something from children. I can quite clearly remember the feeling of curiosity, and happiness, that I used to have when I learned something new. Now I sit there through lecture after lecture, wondering why we never go over Hisenburg's Uncertainty Principle or quantum mechanics.
Do you know how many times I've been told we don't cover something because it isn't on the state core? Shouldn't I decide what I want to learn, not what some bureaucrat wants me to?
Isn't that the way schools used to be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)