Favorite Fourth Quarter/Meta Post

My favorite post from fourth quarter has to be my most recent one, "Censorship Doesn't Teach". In this post, I discussed how censorship of books from school libraries and curriculums hurts the learning process.

This was my best post from fourth quarter because I used a topic that was being covered in class to make my post more relevant, and I used research to show the correlation between states with extensive lists of banned books and the quality of their education systems. I am also proud of how I briefly used historical background to give context to the reader, but I feel like I could have referenced a source when mentioning the history of censorship in schools to further solidify my claim.

If I were to change this post, I would have used data from the past to prove to the reader that "fewer and fewer states and school districts actually bother to maintain lists of banned books". Even though this phenomena truly occurs, it would have been much more effective and perhaps more believable if I had hyperlinked the text to at least one of the studies I looked at.

Overall, I firmly believe that my blog has progressed significantly since the beginning of the year, and even since third quarter. I usually don't consider length of posts to be a critical factor of their evaluation, but when reading through them, I realized that my longer posts delve deeper into the subject and I analyze more sides of the story. And although I have been blogging a bit less frequently, I take more time when creating a post and I feel like it makes up for the lack of more posts. I am also very grateful for the whole concept of blogging for this class. I was very much opposed to it at the beginning of the year because I felt like it was more of a burden than anything else, but as time went on, I noticed that it has improved my writing so much that I cannot think of any other way to have developed my craft in such dramatic fashion.

Censorship Doesn't Teach

This past week in class, we briefly mentioned how certain books can be banned from curriculums for containing foul language or sexual content. The Catcher in the Rye was used as an example of a book once banned (and still banned in some school districts) for its use of the f-word. This topic really interested me, so I conducted further research to see if there is a correlation between the act of banning books and better learning. There isn't.

In fact, it appears to me that banning books from school libraries and curriculums hurts the education process. During the research I conducted over the weekend, I have discovered that states with extensive lists of banned books (i.e. Arizona and Alabama) have significantly worse education systems than states with fewer/no banned books (i.e. Iowa and Illinois). SAT Scores in the Critical Reading section and state literacy rates further legitimize the notion that banning books hurts education.

Over the past few decades, fewer and fewer states and school districts actually bother to maintain lists of banned books. While this phenomena occurs, there has been a sharp increase in the interest of previously banned books. This is demonstrated by the increasing number of banned-book reading marathons, plus the American Library Association's "Banned Books Week", which celebrates the freedom to read all texts.

Thankfully, our country is headed down the right path by choosing to worry less about censorship and more about quality education. With a system focused more on diversifying students' reading curriculums rather than restraining it, America can finally start its long journey back toward the top of the world education rankings.

Who Should Pay for College?

On Thursday, we had a class discussion about whether or not parents should be paying for their kids' college tuition(s). I stated that I believe it's the parents' duty to pay for college expenses (assuming they have the means to make these payments). I have two main reasons (amongst many others) why parents should pay for tuition and I will be exploring them in this post.

1. Tuition is too expensive for kids to pay on their own:

During our class discussion, a few people brought up the point that parents were making kids pay for their own tuition in order to teach them a lesson about the value of the dollar. The biggest problem I have with this argument is that it suggests that parents who make their kids pay for their own college never taught them the value of the dollar up until their senior year of high school. Without a doubt, dealing with the stresses of maintaining good grades and working at least one job in order to pay for college expenses can serve as a good wake up call to many young adults. But at the same time, parents have to realize how miserably difficult they're making their children's lives because of their negligence. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average cost for a 4-year degree (which has become the minimum number of years one must attend college to get a decent job in this economy) has gone from $3,499 in 1980-81 to $21,189 in 2009-10. The skyrocketing price of college tuition causes students who don't have monetary support from their family to take out loans that may take decades to pay off. And not to sound too cynical, but it also causes students and former students alike to kill themselves. A Chicago Sun-Times article tells the story of Jason Yoder, a 35-year-old college graduate, who took his life because he could not pay his college loans. Jason is just one of many college alums who gave up on life because of the mountain of debt that has accumulated from not having sufficient financial support. So, in order to avoid these types of scenarios from happening to their own children, parents should teach their kids at a young age what the value of the dollar is, and not hold off until one of the most important investments of the child's life is right around the corner and have them fend for themselves. 

2. It is every parent's duty to look out for the best interest of their children:

If parents want their children to have as successful of a life as possible, I can't understand why they wouldn't give them that extra boost of paying for college. As I've mentioned in the paragraph above, there are many college graduates who are paying off their student loans in their 30's and sometimes even in their 40's; this means that by the time they're finished with school, college graduates have incurred a significant amount of debt, which in my mind, defeats the purpose of college altogether. What good is it if I have to work long hours to start paying for my classes, materials, room/board and food, while struggling to get good grades due to my most likely hectic work schedule, just to deal with the turmoil of college (peer pressure, frat parties, etc.) and end up financially in the red after all is said and done when I can start working right after high school and live at home until I save enough money to move out, which saves thousands of dollars and avoids a lot of emotional stress? 

Now, it is true that people who have college degrees earn on average around twice as much as people who do not have a degree, but is it worth going through all the frustration just to say that you've earned more money than someone with merely a GED, or does it mean more than this? I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but really think about this question and if you'd like to share an idea, please leave a comment. 

Graduate School Degrees Deemed "Not Worth It"

I came across an article on Yahoo yesterday about how graduate school degrees are being considered worthless by more and more people in these poor economic times. After further research, I have discovered that law degrees especially are being chastised because of how expensive they are.

Just last year, the American Bar Association issued an analysis on its website about the risks of going to law school. It said that a law degree may not be worth the thousands of dollars spent simply because there is a good chance that the debt incurred from taking out a student loan may never be recouped due to a fewer amount of job openings in the law field and/or because you may receive a salary lower than what you expected. The ABA also stated that the "high debt can limit career choices...or delay home ownership or marriage". They've also claimed that "far too many law students expect that earning a law degree will solve their financial problems for life. In reality, however, attending law school can become a financial burden for law students who fail to consider carefully the financial implications of their decision". Undoubtedly, attending law school is one of the more rigorous education paths one can take, but for the ABA itself to issue out a warning is rather shocking. 

For the optimistic students who still choose to enroll in law school, the ABA urges them to go to "a public [law] school where one can get in-state tuition", which still may not help graduates find a job suitable enough to pay for the student loans. In fact, the ABA predicted that "many members of the class of 2010 and 2011 may graduate without a job, and those who are lucky enough to find employment likely will collectively have lower salaries than their predecessors. In short, the job market is more challenging than it has been in many years, as well-paying jobs are in short supply".

As college preparation is in full bloom for many of us, does this recent analysis discourage you from considering enrolling in graduate school?

International Education Rankings: A Comparative Analysis of America vs. the Rest of the World

While researching for my Junior Theme, I stumbled across an article from 2011 which ranked the education systems of the world (the article originally compares the UK to the rest of the world). The results are based on a test given to 470,000 15-year-olds from all over the globe which include numeracy, literacy and science portions. The top ten nations rank as follows:
1. China
2. South Korea
3. Finland
4. Hong Kong
5. Singapore
6. Canada 
7. New Zealand
8. Japan
9. Australia
10. Netherlands




To the dismay of many, the US ranked 17th.

But how is it possible that the "greatest country in the world" could rank a mere 17th on a global education scale? Could it be a lack of funding on local, state and/or federal levels? Poor teaching? Poor study skills by the students? Or could it be an over-emphasis on testing instead of in-depth lessons which thoroughly teach students the material? Could it be that the government is simply throwing money into the system, praying for test scores to go up?

In my paper, I will be searching for answers to this multi-billion dollar question. I'll look at why the Department of Education determines how much money to give to schools based on standardized testing, if it works, and what are some possible solutions to this failing system which has been concerning millions of Americans for the past three decades.

TV Tokenism - Bernie Mac Show

The Bernie Mac Show was a very successful TV sitcom on a network channel with an almost entirely black cast, therefore this REFUTES the thesis. It aired on FOX from 2001-2006 for 5 seasons (total of 106 episodes). The air times varied from Wednesdays at 9:30, 9:00, 8:00, Fridays at 8:00, 8:30, 9:00 and Mondays at 8:00, 8:30. In it's first two seasons, the average ratings were at almost 10 million viewers. As the series progressed, ratings continued to slowly go downhill until FOX announced that it would stop production of the show after it's fifth season. 

Written and produced by Larry Wilmore

Main characters: Bernie, Wanda, Vanessa, Jordan and Bryanna aka "Baby-girl"

Very few white characters are on the show. The few that exist have very minor roles and don't appear for more than two or three episodes. 

Celebrity cameo appearances were frequent. These stars were predominantly black, however. Black celebrities like Ice Cube, Don Cheadle, Chris Rock and Wesley Snipes made appearances on the show. White celebrities like Ashton Kutcher and Penn Jillette have made appearances as well. 

SOURCES:

http://www.tv.com/shows/the-bernie-mac-show/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285341/

Image courtesy of Google

Russia's "Fraudulent" Elections

This past Sunday, Russia held it's quadrennial elections. As most people expected, Prime Minister (and former president) Vladimir Putin won the election. He ended up winning a staggering 63.75% of the vote. He was one of five candidates who ran for office. Despite huge riots by the Russian people throughout the nation against Putin in past weeks, he managed to obliterate the other four candidates, garnering more votes than all of them put together.

Former KGB Agent, former Prime Minister and current President of Russia: Vladimir Putin

A group called the "League of Voters" (which was birthed back in December when Putin's party took control of Russia's parliament) said that "civil society in Russia was insulted" because of the "scammed" elections.

These protesters aren't the only ones crying foul. Several news outlets have been reporting fraudulent results, specifically from St. Petersburg, but a total of 4,000 polling stations are suspected of malpractice. 91,000 polling stations were used for this election, which makes 4,000 seem miniscule. But in the grand scheme of things, that is an alarming number. Putin had a little over 45 million votes; trying to measure exactly how many of them were scammed is practically impossible, but it's safe to say that a very large amount of them were (assuming that Putin did, in fact, tamper with votes).

An internet poll asked what our country should do about Putin and the crisis going on in Russia. 43.54% said we should do nothing and let them deal with this on their own. 30.88% said we should distance ourselves from him. What do you think? Should we get involved and risk further tension or let it slide/mind our own business and not get involved?

An even more important question: what has our country done in order to prevent a scandal like this from happening in our own voting system? Can we do more to help other countries have fairer elections?