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?

Obama's Quran-Burning Apology: Religious Tolerance or Sign of Weakness?

Protests turn violent in Kunduz

Over the past few weeks, the US Military has been under fire for several dishonorable acts, including urinating on dead Taliban bodies and burning Qurans. Afghan citizens have been protesting violently against our military because of these incidents, specifically the burning of the Qurans. Just yesterday, four people were killed and 50 others were injured during a protest outside of the UN office in Kunduz.

President Obama has rightfully apologized for both of these acts, yet he is being scrutinized by, you guessed it, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. The White House hopefuls have stated that the Quran burning incident was unintentional, but the shooting of two US military officers was deliberate and should be apologized for.

What these two fail to see is that the burning of those Qurans was by no means an accident. What those NATO officials did was intentional and grossly inappropriate. If the Afghan military was caught burning Bibles or Torahs, Americans would be expecting an apology in return, without a doubt.

Santorum claimed that Obama's apology was "unacceptable". Now, whether or not we are religious, it should be embedded in our brains that the burning of a book which millions of people worship is the deed that's not acceptable. Tolerance is crucial to attaining peace in a world which one false move can cause an entire nation to erupt. So far, many Americans can't wrap their heads around that principle, and it's no coincidence that we are still hated by much of the Muslim world.

The Numbers: Super Bowl vs. State of the Union

Last weekend, the Super Bowl set another US Television Rating record for the third consecutive year. An estimated 111.3 million people tuned in to watch the Patriots vs. Giants game. But on January 24, only 37.75 million watched the State of the Union address. Surprisingly, this number is actually down from last year. 

These statistics made me ask myself if people are apathetic about politics or if they simply prefer to watch sports because they are more entertaining. 

I, for one, am easily bored by watching football games. For some reason, I can't find a way to stay interested in what's happening on the field. But when it comes to political events (i.e. speeches, debates, etc.) I am much more intrigued and can give my undivided attention to what the speaker is saying. At the same time, I realize that I am probably one of the few kids my age who prefers to watch political television programs over football. I've spoken to a couple friends about this matter and they came to a general consensus that it's not apathy that drives Americans to not watch State of the Union addresses; football is better television, plain and simple. They pointed out that even the reporters mentioned how boring those speeches are.

Clearly, Americans prefer to be entertained when they watch television instead of being lulled to sleep by our President. I am not part of that majority, but so be it. Where do you stand? Would you rather watch a State of the Union address or a Super Bowl game that didn't have your favorite team playing in it? 

Olive Garden Reinvents Itself

Olive Garden, the largest "affordable Italian" restaurant chain in the country, is giving itself a makeover in order to help boost sales in this recession. Restaurants are always hit hard in tough economic times because people aren't willing to spend money on eating out anymore. And when they do, they expect a lot of food at a cheap price. Olive Garden fits those standards by all means. Yet, their sales still haven't been as good as in past years. So how are they going to stop the bleeding? The company will add healthier, cheaper options to their menu. They are also going to use a new ad campaign and are rumored to remodel many of their 750 restaurants.

New business strategies are an excellent way to draw in customers. Being the industry-star that they are, Olive Garden is expected to bounce back from their recent plunge within a few months. This restaurant is a perfect example of an ideal American business. Sometimes sales are good, and sometimes they're bad. Whatever the case may be, staying relevant and being able to adjust to the times is crucial for the success of the business. And even though smaller companies may not bounce back as fast as Olive Garden will, there should be no reason why they shouldn't at least try to appeal to their customers by using new strategies. Statistics show that accommodation boosts performance, and when private sector business do well, the economy can start to recover.

My Meta-Post

After a thorough examination of my first semester blog posts, I noticed a trend; I blog mostly about social and political topics. Especially within the last few weeks (when the Republican-nomination race has developed most), news websites that I use to find topics to blog about, such as CNN and Fox News, are constantly updating us with new stories about the candidates. When I do blog about candidates, I usually offer a brief summary of their latest story and then proceed to connect it to American values. I even throw in some of my own political commentary for the sake of adding a personal touch to my own page.

In the midst of all this personalization, I’ll admit that my commentary took off to a new level and tended to be very critical. If you look at any of my first six posts, you will find a lot of rambling and not much factual support. It took me a while to realize this flaw. Luckily on Thanksgiving break, I actually took the time to read all of my posts and comments. It was surprising to realize how much I lacked rational evidence and from that day forward, I knew that I had to become more constructive.

Because I examined my page a few months ago, I had time to rethink and experiment with how I wanted my posts to sound to the reader. I wouldn’t want him or her to think that I’m a judgemental prick who doesn’t back up my claims. So, I started doing additional research for each story I’d want to blog about and I would try to find the same story from multiple sources. If you look now at my last six posts, you will find that I have turned my angst-filled rants into fact-based analyses of important people and events.

I feel like reinventing myself on my blog page has also helped me write essays. I have been struggling with relating evidence to my claims in papers, and since blogging is essentially mock essay writing, I have been improving my writing technique. Not only is blogging great practice for writing essays, but it forces us to stay in touch with current events. I haven’t paid this much attention to the media since eighth grade when we had to do current events reports every week.

In conclusion, I hope that I will stay motivated enough to sniff out more good stories in second semester, which will help me progress as an essay writer.

Santorum's Sharia Law

Rick Santorum, the Christian Jihadist

I recently read an article on cnn.com about Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum (to see full article, click here). It goes in depth on how he wants to impose a Sharia law in America, like what many Middle Eastern governments, including the Taliban in Afghanistan and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, have done. The only difference is that Santorum's Sharia law would be based on Judeo-Christian values, not Islamic. 

The author, Dean Obeidallah, makes many good points. He points out Santorum's track record of making controversial remarks. For instance, Santorum wants to outlaw porn and contraception. 100%, no exceptions. From a religious point of view, I agree with Santorum's beliefs on not watching porn and not using contraception. But when it comes to a political point of view, it is absolutely ludicrous to think that he has the right to ban people from doing something that doesn't harm anyone. Drugs are outlawed because they cause serious health issues. Fireworks and guns (without permits) are illegal because when in the wrong hands, they can be deadly. My mind simply cannot fathom how condoms and dirty movies could ever be placed in the same category as explosives, firearms and narcotics. (Again, I am in no way justifying the watching of porn or usage of contraception, I'm simply making a point). 

The fact of the matter is that the Office of the President should not be used as a tool for spiritual guidance. Unfortunately, a surprising amount of people just don't understand that. Two weeks ago, I talked to a 40-something-year-old woman from my church. She is an immigrant from Romania and has been living in this country for 17 years. I've known her for about three years now. During our discussion, I randomly asked her who she wants to win the candidacy for the Republican nomination. Respectably, her response was Rick Perry.

"Ok, that's not the best answer but better than some of the other candidates", I thought to myself. Then I asked her why she chose Perry. To my dismay, her reasoning was this: "I think it's about time America had a Christian president. I know a lot of people were upset by the 'Strong' commercial he released, but that wasn't bad at all". I was so shocked that I just told her that I had to leave. I said my good-byes and angrily walked to my car to go home. I was too frustrated to even try to explain a few obvious things that were wrong with her statement, like the fact that just about every President was a Christian of some denomination. The only bright side to this story is that she isn't a citizen and therefore cannot vote. 

With people who rationalize their beliefs like Santorum and this undisclosed woman having any sort of significant power in government, the nation is surely going to divide itself even more. I truly hope that young people will take the initiative to try and educate people like them who are just so blinded by ignorance. Since the people of their own generation couldn't educate them, maybe we should try to. For our own sake and for the sake of the nation.