Blog Debate- 1st Argument

Prompt 220: How well do you think standardized tests measure your abilities?

                These days you’ll see many students stressing about standardized tests. People spend years preparing for them, as they most definitely shape what high school and college you’re going to, and perhaps even what job you’ll have in the future. Another thing you’ll hear students talking about is whether or not this is fair. Do these tests do an effective job at gauging ones intelligence? I personally don’t think so. We learn in school for almost twenty years, and we spend about a week (at most) taking these standardized tests. There’s no way that such a short time period can even scratch the surface of what people learn while they’re at school.     

               For one thing, most of these tests only question about three subjects: math, reading, and writing. At GS, did we not spend our freshman year learning 5 other subjects at the same time? While perhaps all of these subjects were encompassed by these three main things, I still believe it is an egregious oversimplification. Secondly, these tests do not measure any real-world abilities well. Sure, you can hire the person who scored a 2400 on his SAT, but what do you know of his problem-solving skills? His multi-tasking? His ability to work well with others? Nothing. These tests are fundamentally flawed in the fact that they only test you on things you can recite from memory. More complicated things, the real skills that are required for healthy living, are never even looked at.
             
                Humans are so much more than computers. We have personalities, awareness, and emotions. There are infinitely more aspects to life than arithmetic, being able to correct a sentence, and filling in bubbles on a scoring sheet. While scoring well on a tests means you have someone whose good at those things, it by no means gives any indication of how he/she performs doing anything else. After all, we don’t even know the full picture about how the brain works! Right now, we say intelligence is how smart someone is. But what is “smart”. Explain to me the scientific difference in a “smart” person’s brain and a “dumb” person’s brain. And if one person excels at sports, yet the other is a keen reader, then which one is “smarter”? It’s a ridiculous question. If being smart means you think quickly, and do well in a certain thing, wouldn’t that make them both smart? The mind is too complicated to measure it in one dimension, on one scale. Intelligence cannot be tested when we don’t even understand what we’re testing. Such a narrow test as these standardized tests only shed light on the smallest point of a person’s abilities (if even that).
              
               Standardized testing, perhaps all testing in general, is simply inadequate when trying to judge the full scale of a person’s skills. When you test on a certain thing, you get an idea of the person’s ability to do well in that thing. But standardized tests don’t want to admit that that’s all they’re good for. They believe that a person’s abilities in all aspects of life can be measured with three subjects, and that a person’s path in life should be pivotal on a person’s performance on one day. That is the problem with these tests. “Intelligence” these days is becoming an outdated term, because it has too narrow a definition. If someone is not good at something, then surely they must excel at something else. Secondly, as we have heard our soon-to-retire headmaster say, intelligence is not fixed. It can grow in any direction, and a person’s ability to do something may change over time. In general, these standardized tests are trying to get a sense of an entire quilt with a pair of tweezers. Sure, you’ll get a get a really good idea of what that particular thread looks like, but you’re just kidding yourself if you think you know the entire quilt, the human being, based on that thread.   

 

Death Penalty Arguments Response

     While it might be because of the order that we read the articles, I now find myself in favor of abolishing the death penalty. Where I stood before reading these two pieces was very ambivalent. I had heard both sides of the argument, but I wasn’t quite sure I wanted to take a firm stance on the issue. Now, though, I am leaning more towards the side of Bruck’s opinion rather than Koch’s. I found Bruck’s argument more convincing because it appealed to my sense of ethics. While Koch argued very well the possible ways that the death penalty can be considered morally right, I wasn’t totally convinced. It may not have been as much convincing as it was just my moral views, but I agreed more with Bruck’s views. Both arguments however had good logical appeals, and included some humor with them as well. The two major fallacies I noticed in these essays were Straw Man and Faulty Analogy. For example, when Bruck said, “[Koch] suggests that we trivialize murder unless we kill murderers. By that logic, we also trivialize rape unless we sodomize rapists.” I personally think the analogies made by both sides were fine, but a true stickler might say otherwise. Overall, both sides made very persuasive arguments, so it’s not by convincing but simply by personal inclination that I favor Bruck’s angle.

Analysis of Obama Immigration Speech

               Overall, I found the speech that Obama made regarding his propositions for immigration laws effective. Using various emotional and logical strategies, Obama made his ideas seem very reasonable, and at the same time made himself more relatable to all types of audiences.

                An example of appealing to all audiences would be the way that he opened his speech. He talked about America-- what a strong, developed country it is, and how we should all be proud to live in it. He accomplished two things by saying these things. First, he instilled a patriotic pride into his viewers, making them feel good about themselves. This complementing could be described as an emotional, or pathos, argument. The second way this argument works is, again, related to its patriotism. There are many rumors around that argue Obama doesn’t care about America, and that he’s not a “true American”, as if there even is such a thing. He attempts to dissipate these rumors in his opening, not by directly addressing them but by acting in the opposite way people say he does. If they say he’s a Muslim, he acts as Christian as possible (he quotes the Bible near the end of his speech). In doing this, he not only puts rumors at ease but also makes himself more relatable to the people who created the slander. One could say that, by acting like an ideal American, he argued through his character, or ethos. Using these two things lets Obama bridge the gap in-between him and his audience. He seems to relate to them, so they in turn relate to him. Because of the double-effectiveness of this patriotic approach, he uses it quite frequently. While a good argument for its target, I found it a little excessive as someone who doesn’t relate to a patriot. But then again, it doesn’t really matter what I think, it matters what most of the country thinks. Therefore, I found that acting patriotic was beneficial to convincing his audience that he had good ideas to propose.

                Another strategy I found effective was his use of imagery and repetition of sentence structure when talking about immigrants. He asked rhetorical questions, all basically asking “Are we a horrible, cruel nation, or are we America?” Image-creating phrases were used, such as “ripping a child from her mother’s arms”, and other family-related atrocities. While this could be argued as being an overly-sentimental appeal, it still could resonate with the soft spot in all of us. The majority of Americans have families, and would feel the most sympathy for the immigrants, just what Obama intended.

                Those are the two major arguments I noticed in this speech. The president weaved these sometimes-not-so-subtle appeals into his main point about immigration. Contrasting to the way Obama brought himself closer to his audience, the way he argued his proposals was very logical. I also noticed that he acted very maturely when he talked about congress, and how they had not let any of his bills pass. He made himself seem like the bigger-man in the whole situation, congress just being an annoying obstacle in innocent Obama’s way. But in a way this kind of over-maturity is ridicule, just in a less noticeable form. The only difference is that if Obama had made a personal attack on congress, a backfire would most likely have occurred. This is because most people know the fallacy of arguing against an opponent’s character when the opponent’s ideas are being argued, and would have called him out on that.

                The conclusion: I think this speech is effective for most people. There is a good balance of ethos, logos, and pathos arguments, hitting as many demographics and ethnicities as possible. Of course, there will always be the extremists, who couldn’t be convinced with any amount of bible-thumping. But still, for the moderates, people on the fence, or even those who already support him, Obama made a good argument for his immigration law proposals. 

Food at GS

              To describe my experience of the food at GS in 400 words is a little difficult. Not because it wouldn’t be able to fit all the rantings I have about how bad it is, but because I really haven’t thought about it that much. For me, the food has always been above par, or at least right on it. I’ve never been one of those hypocritical complainers talking about how bad the food is as they shove it in their mouths. I’ve just gone in, sat down, ate my food, and got out. That’s how it’s been for the past year and I have yet to be disappointed. In other words, it’s difficult, and maybe pointless, to write a 400 word paper expressing “meh”.

                But, maybe there is more to talk about here. Maybe the dining hall is more than just a place where animals get what they need then leave. After all, we’re humans, so practically everything we do has some sort of social aspect woven into it. Remember the whole “soy-nut butter” incident of last year? Part of me sometimes wonders if the protesters were having more fun yelling about it than they actually cared about bringing peanut butter back. We, as teenagers, are like unlit fuses of confusion and frustration. Any kind of change in the usual routine that lets us release these things will light that fuse, and so it did last year. Let’s think about what would have happened if this situation went down at a typical office. You can no longer get butterfingers from the vending machine. How would the workers have reacted? Maybe at first, politely asked the boss to bring them back, to which he would say something about the budget and shoo you out of his office, and that would probably be the end of it. Adults, more pessimistic about their worldview as they realize their age, wouldn’t have the same, self-centered rebellious spirit as teenagers would. They would suck it up and order something else from the vending machine. That whole incident of last year demonstrated that here at GS, we are free-thinking, non-passive beings who do not view the “boss” as the controller of our lives. This is the danger of liberal, Quaker teenagers.

                This brings me back to the complainers. Just as the peanut-butter protestors didn’t care as much about the issue as they said they did, maybe they don’t really dislike the food as much as they say. By exaggerating and sharing their ideas with others, they can all insult the food to their heart’s content—but still have to eat it. In this way, the dining hall is a kind of social punching bag that never takes any offense and will always be there for another zinger. It allows us to decompress, not just by giving us nourishment, but also giving us the enjoyment of making fun of it. We can all pretend we’re in this awful situation where we eat nothing but junk all day, and make ourselves the hero of our own tragic story. It gives us the motivation to continue, to rise up, and to rebel.

                So, all in all, I am appreciative of the dining hall. I thank it for the spirit it gives, and for playing its role as the perpetual villain we create to make us feel better about ourselves. I thank it for every bland dessert, and for every soggy piece of tofu. For every bone I find in the chicken, and for every food I’ve never heard of on its menu. And finally, for every time I go looking for a utensil and find none, eventually having to use a bendy plastic fork to try and cut a cold turkey meatball. Thank you.  

Religion In Class Essay- Mindfulness

          When comparing the poem “Mindful”, by Mary Oliver, and the bag scene from the movie American Beauty, one similarity comes to mind. In both of these artful expressions, key focus has been placed on the mundane. The normal, day to day commonplace of life holds a special meaning for both the poem and the movie. I believe that is because the writers wanted to show their audience what mindfulness really is. We always pay special attention to the beautiful things. The things that come rarely are always looked at more closely than everything else. This gives life a sputtering quality, sleeping during every normal day and jarring yourself awake for every special one. Living life in this way, like most of us do, makes us miss more important things than we realize. What is argued in both the movie scene and the poem is that every moment has a special meaning to it, and that being aware of every moment can make it more meaningful. Being mindful makes life more fulfilling and satisfying, just as slowly chewing and swallowing food is shown to be better than swallowing it whole.

                 Paying attention to every moment, though, is difficult. We are all so conditioned to conserve our energy, to ignore certain things and sleepwalk through life. Sometimes, especially when I’m tired, I find myself in a dreamlike state where nothing seems real, and I’m only drifting through a scene already played out in my mind. This kind of living is what makes us miss the truly important things.

                I would like to appreciate a simple thing, as the man in the movie scene did. But during regular life, it’s hard to see the true meaning behind every moment. How can the present be important? What was the point of staring at that bag?  But you have to realize that this moment will never happen again, and that once that bag floats away, you’ll likely never see it again. Every moment is like life. During its existence, it tries to effect as much as it can and be as loud and energetic as possible. But, even though it doesn’t know it, it is transient. Soon, the moment disappears, replaced by another, and another, until the day we ourselves perish. That’s why every moment and every person you encounter must be appreciated.

Macbeth- "The Time is Free"

     For me, the way I first interpreted this line is that Scotland is now free from the curse it was under during the reign of Macbeth. Like a spell being lifted, a burden has been lifted off of the people's shoulders, and now there will be good times ahead. Another way to interpret this is that time itself was kept prisoner under Macbeth's reign. With even nature reeling from Duncan's murder, it must have seemed like time was frozen during this nightmarish state, like it would never end. Now, time is free to move forward and go on like it's supposed to. Another way this line can be viewed is that the era of tyranny is over, and now the time of more freedom and order has begun. The time is now free, it is the beginning of a new era for Scotland. One final way this line can be thought of is that now there is no king to rule. With Macbeth dead and Malcolm not having yet assumed his rightful position on the throne, the government is in a bit of an anarchy. In other words, perhaps Macduff said this line to tell Malcolm to hurry up with making himself king, as there is no ruler currently.

9-24 Religion Assignment- Coltrane

     Coltrane’s spiritual revelation is very much related to the ones we hear about in Walsh’s book. Coltrane thought that he, as many spiritual stories say, is but God’s instrument. Like in the story about motives from our book, his motive was to give to others the greatest possession he had: his music. He played to make other people happy, he saw it as his gift to the world. During his recovery from his heroin and alcohol addiction, he promised God that if he could play music again he would be “a preacher on his horn”. I think this meant that he would follow good spiritual values from then on, and try to teach others to do the same through his playing. Overall, he was giving people his ultimate possession for them to enjoy: his music. This is a very humble way of living life, which Walsh would say is good for you spiritually.

            I admire Coltrane for having such dedication in life. Despite at one point being addicted to drugs, he had the willpower to bring his life back around to focus on what he really cared about. He let go of some of the attachments that were controlling his life. From then on, he didn’t let cravings of those things take away from what he really wanted to do. He knew that his purpose in life was to play, and I envy having that kind of knowledge. Never having to wonder what you want to do in life must be nice. Coltrane was sure that he was fulfilling his purpose in life and doing as much as he could. He knew what his passion was, and made his life revolve around it. I don’t know if Coltrane was happy in life or not, but if he was then I believe he fulfilled his purpose in life. He did what he loved, tried to help others, and was happy. As far as my view on life goes, that’s all you could ever want.