HW 58: Parenting 102

After hearing Marks talk about parenting, I've realized that there is a lot that goes into parenting. There are so many ways you can raise a child, right ways and wrong ways. It's scary to know that the way your child turns out may be due to a big part in the way you've brought them up. I agreed with a lot of the ideas Marks had for the future of his child. He plans on putting her in all sorts of classes so she can develop different skills and become well rounded, although I don't know if that will put too much pressure on the child. A good balance will be fine. He also said that college can be optional for her but the important thing is to help her hone the skills she's best at, whether it be artistic skills or mathematical skills. I think it's very important that a parent not be too controlling of a child. Often times, parents are very strict with their child, up to the point where they've planned out its whole future before it even has a chance to find out where its passion really lies.

My parents are very forceful that I go to college and find a job I can earn a lot in. The pressure can really get to a child, especially when the parent doesn't even try to understand what they want. My mom has stated countless times that it doesn't matter if the job is enjoyable. The important thing is the earn money. In her mind, the number of digits in your salary determines success rather than how much chemistry you have with your job. This type of parenting style doesn't do much motivating or encouraging. It gets your child confused and gives them less confidence to appraoch life. It gives them the impression that what they want is insignificant and life isn't about chasing after your dreams.

The units this year has made me question a lot about my own situation, where I am and what I want to be in life. This parenting unit had me thinking about the way my parents have raised me and how that might've have shaped the person I am. Still though, there are so many factors into raising a child, so many combinations, that it's virtually impossible to try to perfect the art of parenting unless your child is being raised by robots. But even then, he/she won't be receiving much love. I think a parent must try to perfect himself/herself and become a role model first, therefore the child can imitate the right way to do things. They also need to keep an open mode of communication, so the child can feel comfortable coming to his/her parents with issues before anyone else. This relationship would keep the child from feeling isolated. It lets them know that help is always within reach and that there is always room for help and growth.

Parenting is a lot of responsibility. Not only are you caring for another human being physically, you are ultimately caring for them emotionally and tending to their every need. It's not something you can just flake out on and give up on. It's a life. I don't think I'll ever be ready. I want to know what's the real reason why people want babies. To feel loved? To strengthen their bonds? Because they're cute? To continue their family line? I don't understand what would make them want to give birth to such a big burden. I'm really curious. I'm not against having children. I want one too someday. But I don't know why I do. I guess people just don't question it. It's one of those mandatory things in life, like going to school.

Another topic I'm interested in is does parenting play a big role in shaping a child's life? There are plenty of successful people with bad childhoods. The way you are parenting might have a big impact on the child early in its life but as it grows, the child is ultimately the one who decides who he/she will look up to. He can disregard his parents completely and look at his grandma, teacher, friend, or a musician for guidance instead. I think it is what he chooses to follow that is what's going to take its effect on him the most. So no matter how much of a good parent you try to be, how many times you tell your child what to do or what not to do, how much attention you try to give him/her, how many classes you try to put her/him into, none of it matters unless they accept it.

HW 57: Parenting 101

Parenting should be a balance between rule enforcement and giving the child enough space to make mistakes on his/her own as well. I see people who have parents who call them every hour to check up on them and expect them to come home by 6. Then I see others who are completely spoiled that they become this person who expects everyone to cater to them. I think once the kids grow up, parents should allow them more freedom, provide advice and let them make their own choices. Trust is a key part as well, because I know I hate it when my parents don't trust me. If you had made an effort to instill values and in them, you've done your part. If you go too far to try to prevent them from doing the things they want to do such as not allowing them to stay up late or have a boyfriend/girlfriend, that will only get them madder. Parents just need to understand that their children will make mistakes, but they should trust that they can also come back from these mistakes otherwise trying to prevent it will only make them want to commit more mistakes. We all learn through experience. Telling us what not to do isn't enough to stop us from doing it when we don't know why we shouldn't.

Parents should also act as role models. If they want their children to become a certain person, they should uphold those qualities in themselves as well. They need to exhibit leadership skills, relationship skills, generosity, consideration, hard working abilities, respect, communication skills, etc. so their child can learn by seeing. My parents can be hypocrites sometimes, as we all can be. But I know that when I see them yelling at me for stuff they're doing as well, it annoys the hell out of me. Parents should be aware of their own actions and be aware of their child's feeling too (same goes for child). When everyone is considerate of each other in the household, it creates an inviting environment for intimate conversations. I think communication is one of the most important factors in raising a child. My parents and I talk but it never goes anywhere when they don't understand where I'm coming from. Many times they disregard what I want and insist that I commit to the things they want me to do. It took me the longest time convincing them to let me play volleyball. I was surprised that they were so against it. Anything that takes away from my study time is going to be something they object, not that I do that much studying anyway. After a while though, they've grew interested and asked about my games and about my progress. They liked the idea that I was getting exercise and talked about how good that's doing for my body (they're really into healthiness).

Although my parents get on my nerves a lot of the times, as I get on theirs too, one of the greatest things is they've never given up on me. No matter how many mistakes I've committed, no matter how much attitude I give them, they always find a way to forgive me. I wouldn't say they spoil me but I do get a lot of the stuff I want and in return I am required to do well in school. They're very compromising. If I have a good reason for staying out late, going somewhere far, buying something, they'll usually let me. I've also noticed that when they talk to me instead of lecturing me, that's when I have the most motivation to do good in school and to make the right choices. I think they have a perfect balance between control and freedom. They tell us what we should or should not do, but they don't force these rules on us. They give my sister and I enough breathing room but not too much that we take advantage of it.

If I were a parent, I have no idea how good I am going to be. I've always sworn to do certain things that my parents have done and certain things different. But I feel like once the child comes, I would be tempted to spoil them or I might not know how to control my negative emotions around them or towards them. I'm afraid I won't be a good enough role model. I know I'll probably be okay in supporting them financially but it's the raising them to become the person I want them to be that is going to be the hard part. I'll try to be strict and I'll try to become their friend and the person they feel comfortable coming to when they have a problem.

When Parenting Strategies Backfire
The article was really funny. The kids were very clever. I think if you tried this strategy with older people they might fall for it. But kids will always go for the things they want the most, not the choices they are given. For simple things such as what pants to wear, what cup they want, kids already know what is their favorite. When they're offered choices, they won't care. They won't think about which option is better, because they already have the best option in their minds and its not the one that is given to them. I think giving a kid too many options would create a misunderstanding where they would think that everything they'd encounter would offer them choices when in reality sometimes you have to do what you have to do. I don't think this strategy is effective. Kids don't do well with compromises. If you give them a lot of choices they're not going to let you make a decision when it comes time. They're going to think that everything is their choice.

Continuum Concept
It's really ironic that the ones who are "spoiled" are the ones who grow up to be most independent when the ones who are often ignored during childhood in fear of spoiling them are the ones who develop the least self esteem. When they are ignored, they feel shame and get a feeling of little self worth. I think that it is okay to answer all your child's needs when he/she is little, and then gradually take some of it away as time goes on. While reading the Westeners' strategy, it sounded kind of stupid. It seems as though the parents are cutting off all emotional connections with the baby. They don't feel loved and they're not spending enough time with the parents, leading them to feel isolated and insignificant. That sounds horrible. I would never do that to my child, at least not to such an extreme. The Continuum Concept sounds like a more natural approach. It surprised me that providing a child with that much attention would increase their self-reliance.

Research Question: What is the best possible compatibility match given between two (or more) people by the Myers Briggs assessment and how do we know?

Questions:

1. What types of people do you find yourself most comfortable with?
2. What types do you find yourself having a hard time clicking with?
3. Do you prefer being alone more or being in a relationship more?

Lily: ESFJ

1. Outgoing and funny people.
2. Emo people, outcasted, the types of people that stands in the corner because it's annoying and it brings down my mood.
3. In a relationship. (But can you handle being alone?) No, because it's great to have a companion, someone you can turn to.

She enjoys hanging out with people who are more like her. She likes to have fun and likes surrounding herself with people who'll have fun with her. Here, compatibility is based on similarities and not differences... which makes sense because her boyfriend is ESFJ as well.

Dennis: ESFJ

1. Gangsters... nah i'm just kidding. I don't know. I really don't know. I kind of work well with everyone. (Why do you think that is?) Because I'm a social bug. And I'm so sexy.
   
2. Posers, people who try to be someone they're not. Like a guy who wears overalls and goes to Harlem and chills and try to be gangsta.
3. I don't know. I'm so sexy that if I can't be in a relationship, then they're missing out... 'cause I'm so sexy. All jokes aside though, I could go either way. I'm never alone really 'cause I'm always with friends . I guess I'm afraid to be alone.

He gets along with almost everyone. He doesn't get along with people who aren't themselves around him. He's used to socializing and being in a relationship. Both him and Lily aren't used to being in solitude. Having people there is a necessity.

Andy: ISTP

1. Those who are not loud, nor completely silent...and people whose only topic-of-discussion aren't just themselves.
2. People who are loud, people who only talk about themselves. I also have a hard time, getting along with people who are "fake"...well maybe not fake, but people who try extra hard to project this identity that they want to get through to people.
3. Alone. I mean, there's always a need to socialize....I think it's just cause I got used to being with people recently that I would have that urge. but yeah...alone- if you're around less people, there are less people around to annoy you.

He prefers a quieter environment. He likes surrounding himself more with thoughts and insights rather than the intrusion of other people. He prefers people who are more like his type, more introverted and thoughtful. It seems that most thinkers would want to be with other thinkers, but I don't know about feelers.

Raymond: INFP

1. People who are open because I don't need to work as hard trying to communicate. They make it fun.
2. (No comment)
   
3. Relationship. I don't know why.

He's extremely introverted, so he prefers to interact with someone who is more extroverted. It's also surprising that he prefers being in a relationship since I would assume that introverts rather keep to themselves as opposed to sharing a lot of information with another person.

Sweetie: ESFP

1. I love to be with crazy people, meaning they do extreme stuff, like super non nerdy =) Talkative, definitely. You will find none of what I say will match up with Adam xD
2. The ones related to the feelings vs reality ones....he ones that ask me to make a decision about myself. For example, the ones like asking if i'm more emo or more judgmental.
   
3. Relationship =)I don't stay single for long. (Why do you think you enjoy being in relationships more?) I don't like being lonely, wanna feel like someone's there for me.

She's more extroverted and prefer someone who is more like her, although she says her boyfriend is nothing like that. This makes me question if our preferences are really the qualities we are most compatible with or if they're merely preferences. Do we know what is best for us? She is also used to being in a relationship and takes it to be an essential part of her life.

Adam: ISTP

1. I like being with insightful people.... that don't make stupid decisions meaning they think before they act.. they are mindful of people's feelings and can understand what people are realy like...
2. Stupid people... those that disregard any logic and always think they're right, and that ignore people's thoughts.
3. Hmmm... tough one, but I prefer to be in a relationship. Sometimes it pays to be have someone with you, just in case. And the other person can give a different perspective on your thoughts, broadening your perspective on the world.

He likes to be with people who are understanding and considerate, who are also P, I guess. He doesn't like it when people don't think. In his case, he is most compatible with T's and P's, like himself.

Rachel: ESFJ

1. Um I feel most comfortable with people who are similar to me, who like the same things I do, who just enjoy having fun .
2. I have a hard time clicking with snooty people, people who think they're all that, people who like to judge others the first time they see them.
3. And I prefer being in a relationship more than being alone . Because I feel that humans thrive on social interactions, and we become who we are through the aid of others. By constantly being alone, we are neglecting ourselves from society, thus not developing our minds or learning new things.

She's most compatible with people who are like her type. Like the previous extroverts I interviewed, she enjoys being in a relationship more than being in solitude. She believes that the people we find ourselves interacting with becomes a part of who we are.

Survey Question: On a scale of 1-5, are you someone who only enjoys the company of people like you (1), or are you compatible with all types (5)?

HW 54

INTP and INFP

Introverted (I) 54.29% Extroverted (E) 45.71%
Intuitive (N) 52.78% Sensing (S) 47.22%
Thinking (T) 50% Feeling (F) 50%
Perceiving (P) 51.43% Judging (J) 48.57%

"Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population.

I thought the test was pretty accurate. INTP was what I categorized myself as in class when I read the list of types. When I took the test after, I was surprised to see that I got the same one. I'm surprised though that it's only 3.3 percent of the population. I don't know if I should consider that a good or a bad thing. I felt that a lot of the answers I put down were usually in the middle. I rarely answered a question with a 1 or a 5. It was usually the 2-4 option. That's why most of them are around 50%. I found myself factoring in the way I looked at myself and the way others might view me into a lot of the answers. After reading other descriptions to my type though, I found that it really did fit me. I like logic, math, and have the tendency to correct others. I don't like making spectacles of myself and I'm "much more confident in their competence and willing to act on their convictions." The survey seems reliable. It gives a good general overview on the types of people we are, although we shouldn't rely on it to define who we are as deeper people.

HW 53: Survey Analysis

Part 2:

While I was taking the survey, I had to stop to think about a lot of the questions.  It was hard to categorize a lot of the questions.  For example, the family questions really stumped me.  I've never really admitted certain things about my family life, so once I answered some questions, it really hit me hard.  It made me want to do something about it. to change it so that next time I come across questions like that, my answers would be different.  I was really curious about the family questions because we all see each others with friends already.  We pretty much have a good idea of who each other is while interacting with friends.  We haven't seen everyone with their families though and I know a lot of us act differently.  And it's just interesting to see if our relationships with our families are just as good as the ones we make in school or outside of our homes.

Part 3:

I was surprised to see how positive the results came out to be.  For example, most people say they feel happy by themselves.  If they aren't lying and that's true, then it's good to hear that many of us aren't dependent on people and things for assurance.  A lot of people say their lives are meaningful as well.  If only the survey can ask how because I'm sure we all find meanings from different things.  Although the survey points out that a lot of us have insecurities (that's natural), most of us are happy with how our lives are so far.  My results are similar and different in some ways.  I feel like a lot of my family questions were answered a little more differently from the average results.  But a lot of my friendship and self answers were the same.  This is probably because I develop more positive connections with myself and friends than with my parents.

Part 4:

It's hard to compare the two, when the survey questions are different.  But judging from the professional survey, the amount of drug use, the attempts at suicide, and the eating disorders, it seems that a lot more teens in that survey are less happy with themselves than the ones at SOF.  However, there was also a high percentage of teens in the professional survey that seems to know what they are doing and are responsible.  But I feel like most of the students in our school are responsible and confident.  That's why in the informal survey, we see more positive results as opposed to that of the professional survey where 14.5% of the population has contemplated suicide.  My interpretations of the kids at SOF are biased however.  I'm judging it based on the results from the informal survey and on what I see everyday at school.  So I don't really know how many have thought about suicide before.  But from the looks of both surveys, it seems that SOFers are a lot more mature than the teens of the YRBSS survey.

HW 52: Initial Theories of Human Relationships

I feel like the bonds shared by humans can be both deep and shallow. It's easy to differentiate the two. It's not hard to miss a deep connection when you feel one. I think companionship is the main reason why we develop relationships. Bonds can be seen as a selfish concept. We can all admit that we take some friends for granted, to use to just pass the time; or use their affection to make ourselves feel more significant in a world that treats us indifferently.  But all of us, have at least one person we share a strong connection with, whether it's a friend, family member, or boyfriend/girlfriend.

Human thrive off feelings.  We struggle to find love.  Love makes us feel like we aren't alone.  It fills up our emptiness.  It makes us feel important and provides meaning in our lives.  So we make friends and find mates, people who will pay attention to us.  We search for instant connections (hence online dating sites, Facebook, bars etc.) and a lot of them as well, otherwise we immediately feel ignored and insignificant.

One question I have is are we all motivated by the same thing or is it limited to the individual?  For the longest time, people have been obsessed with social ranking.  Power gives us significance.  And people strive for recognition.  Nobody wants to be a nobody.  It's always a competition to reach the top.  Is it really worth the fight?  Do we really obtain that satisfaction we always thought we would have once we've reached the top?  Hopefully... otherwise more than half the population is on the wrong track.

Even countries start war to sustain social ranking.  Yes, yes, each war was fought for a different reason.  But even then, they all share a common factor, to destroy the opponent's reputation.  Even now, we are still fighting for world leadership.  During the Cold War, world rankings led nations to pursue nuclear proliferation.  Hitler created the greatest genocide in history to make Jews feel like crap and to make clear that his people were more important.  Religions were created to make people feel like those of their religion are favored over others.  Humans run their life according to the way they pursue their own level of significance.  Those who have low self esteem might go searching for money, a boyfriend/girlfriend to boost their confidence and significance level.  They might even turn to discrimination and bullying.  Those who are content with themselves, who view everyone and everything as equal, no more or less important than one another will not be seen pursuing these things (monks for example).  Neither is right or wrong.  The first one though is more common because that's just human nature.

What we lack is independence.  We are constantly depending on people and things for assurance when all we need is really ourselves.  Sure, it's great to hear a compliment.  Sure it's good to have money.  But first, before all that, I think we need to look inside ourselves first and like who we already are and what we already have.  Everything else is just excess, stuff we can live and be just as happy without.  Thoreau says men "lead lives of quiet desperation."  What most of us is striving for is unnecessary.  A lot of the motivations we encounter are really superficial (ie. social ranking, power, money).  It's possible to lead a simple solitude life and be satisfied.  Now that's success.

School as Domination

School, widely known as the place that helps kids grow, learn, and become the best people they can be is pretty much an image that is set up to cover up the greater motives of the institution. Although it may seem that the students' benefits receive the most attention, the real benefits actually go to the ones who are controlling the system. Schooling is no longer education. Schooling is the institution's way of training us to be brainwashed working fools by stuffing our brains with excess facts and convincing us that by memorizing these facts, we will be awarded with future success.

Gatto divides the concept of being schooled and receiving an education. Schooling teaches us "bad habits" where we are taught obedience and where we never reach the intellectual potential we could have if we had not been schooled. He refers to school as prison cells, where both teachers and students are drenched in boredom because of the rigid structures we are forced to work with. He believes that schooling is there to suppress children so that they can never fully grow up. They are taught to be blind consumers and mediocre laborers. He mentions Inglis who proposes 6 of school's "basic functions" that counteracts the three the government tries to get us to believe (which were making good people, citizens, and helping each be their personal best). To sum it up, students are trained to respond obediently in front of authority. They are trained to conform for better manageability. They are sorted out for social roles, and then are taught the skills for their social roles (but only to a minimum). They make sure that it is made obvious that the "dumb" kids are seen an inferior, so as to improve future natural selection. And last but not least, they train a small portion of these kids to become the ones who look after the 6 functions and make sure they continue.

The system is manipulated in which there is a set limit to how much they teach and how much students can actually learn. This limit is what allows them to have a better control over the masses, because limits prevent students from achieving extreme individualistic views, which in turn keeps them in their place/social role. By keeping students from growing out of their prison cells, these students turn out like one another, each destined to become future workers.

Home-schooling, Gatto proposes, is a way of avoiding the institution. Home-schoolers tend to develop a larger sense of self identity, whereas school students are trained to conform and meet the norms they see in the classroom. Their environment allows them to express their thoughts and address their curiosity more frequently than school children, who sit in their desks as a stranger pours ideas into their minds (the banking approach). But because only the rich are able to afford home schooling, it is hard for the poor to break through the system. Therefore, through homeschooling, the rich acquires more leadership skills which helps them find power while the poor stays in the working class.

Freire explains the concept of the banking approach where teachers are merely there to deposit facts into the students minds, described as the containers. The more deposits these students accept into their bins, the less likely they are to critically think about them. In school these students gradually adapt to their passive roles and soon enough they come to accept the idea that they are merely spectators, not "re-creators." They are not taught leadership skills, just enough that will allow them to work FOR the world and the path the creators are leading.

The solution here is to transform the system. We have to understand that the banking concept doesn't help the students achieve a personal connection at all with the material they are given. We should abandon this concept and somehow have the teachers and students form a relationship where both groups are learning and teaching at the same time. The banking concept looks at its students as objects it can brainwash and exploit. But if teachers become more willing to communicate with their students, the class would have a better sense of reality, one where they can recognize themselves as individuals and as leaders, rather than tools. By sharing ideas, students can finally think critically and be humanized from their forms of containers. Humanization helps students achieve a better understanding of their own individual desires as opposed to the ones they are told to have. It makes them conscience of their personal goals in life. It flips the students' perspective from passivity to a more active view of the world, where they are motivated to go for their dreams, no matter how unusual they seem to the world.

This type of transformation is seen in the Coalition of Essential Schools found by Ted Sizer. The types of schools in the coalition are seen as student centered as much as it is teacher centered. It pays attention to the goals of the students to make sure that along with what the teacher wants to teach, the students preferences are also taken into account. Sizer created this hoping to give students more freedom to think, while the teachers serve as guidance. He says, “Inspiration, hunger: these are the qualities that drive good schools. The best we educational planners can do is to create the most likely conditions for them to flourish, and then get out of their way.” Inspiration doesn't come out of banking concept, rather it is suppressed in it. Sizer's philosophy encourages creativity and thinking out side of the box. This solution provides students with an opportunity to discover their own individuality, thus giving them an edge with other clones.

The teacher in the movie Dead Poet's Society is a great example of such a coach. At the beginning of the movie, the students read off a textbook that told them the strict procedure of measuring poetry. To that, Mr. Keating says is b.s. He tells them that poetry should be made up of raw emotions and truth. He intrigues the students about the subject, yet gives them no specific instructions on how their poems should be written. He gives them plenty of room to write and express themselves. This works so well that one of his students start rebelling his parents. He abandons their expectations for him and pursues his own desire of being an actor. Unfortunately at the end, he was still unable to escape the chains of authority and kills himself. The education Mr. Keating gave them got them to see the world outside of their prison cells. It gave them all an opportunity to figure out who they are as individuals.

The students in Dead Poets Society before their transformation, all pretty much acted the same. The poses they put on are typical and are necessary for achieving success. It might not seem so but there are certain codes, cultural codes that schools and those in power go by (Delpit). These codes include "linguistic forms, communicative strategies, and presentation of self; that is, ways of talking, ways of writing, ways of dressing, and ways of interacting." These boys in the movie are taught to act politely in public, to talk a certain way since childhood. These codes have probably been passed on for generations because their families all come from a line of rich and powerful people. So unless your family teaches you the "right" cultural rules, it's hard to succeed in school because their methods of teaching are usually tailored for kids that come from the Culture of Power. Culture of Power is determined by the upper and middle class. So lower class members usually suffer academically because the strategies these schools are teaching with are not as adaptable for them. This is the system's way of making sure that the "right people win" and the "right people lose".

Again, we need to transform the system. The only way we can change this is to change the school system and change the ways they approach teaching. This reminds me of a song we heard in class that talked about how schools should be teaching how to stay of jail, how to avoid gang violence, and how to keep away from drugs instead of the "useless" stuff they're teaching now. Every culture has to be approached differently otherwise they wouldn't find their education appealing enough. If they're not willing to learn, they're not going to learn, and they're not going to see it as an education. We need to determine the different cultures and the different needs of each, then everyone can have an equal education. It's unfair that the higher classes always remain in the higher position while the poor stay poor, especially when every child has the same potential. It all depends on how they are being taught and how well they are responding to that education. This ensures that the cultures that aren't part of the Culture of Power can have a chance at an authentic education, and not pushed to the back (Gatto's function 5 - "wash the dirt down the drain.")

Schooling is the institution's way of training us to be brainwashed working fools by stuffing our brains with excess facts and convincing us that by memorizing these facts, we will be awarded with future success. We, as students are sorted, labeled, categorized, and basically have our lives secretly planned for us by the government. We are convinced that success means to excel at school, a concept we aren't fully aware of. Freire's banking concept is what students strive to excel at, while people like Ted Sizer try to encourage students to do more free thinking. The institutions primary goal is to suppress individuality and produce clones. Clones are predictable. They're easy to manage, whereas if you have too many critical thinkers, the government would feel challenged. Some of the proposed solutions provided here are home-schooling, humanization of both students and teachers, adapting the Coalition of Essential School's philosophy, and transforming teaching methods to suit different cultures. Only by understanding the institutions can we know how to escape or how to transform these systems in such a way where every child coming into an institution won't come out looking like each other.

HW 50

Gatto divides the concept of being schooled and receiving an education. Schooling teaches us "bad habits" where we are taught obedience and where we never reach the intellectual potential we could have if we had not been schooled. He refers to school as prison cells, where both teachers and students are drenched in boredom because of the rigid structures we are forced to work with. He believes that schooling is there to suppress children so that they can never fully grow up. They are taught to be blind consumers and mediocre laborers. He mentions Inglis who proposes 6 of school's "basic functions" that counteracts the three the government tries to get us to believe (which were making good people, citizens, and helping each be their personal best). To sum it up, students are trained to respond obediently in front of authority. They are trained to conform for better manageability. They are sorted out for social roles, and then are taught the skills for their social roles (but only to a minimum). They make sure that it is made obvious that the "dumb" kids are seen an inferior, so as to improve future natural selection. And last but not least, they train a small portion of these kids to become the ones who look after the 6 functions and make sure they continue.

Gatto's solution to this is home schooling. Homeschooling does seem like a pretty good idea. I think homeschoolers are usually much more confident, and their thoughts are always more interesting. By not having a system forcing the same ideas to them as they do to everyone else, they are able to develop a more individualistic element in their thinking. They certainly won't come out as mediocre or as clones. They won't be diagnosed for social roles or to conform since there's no other child around to conform to. Their environment allows them to receive an education that lets them think more freely, that supports their curiosity, rather than being shot down and categorized/punished for every action they take. When I read Gatto's description of the well schooled student, one that chooses TV over books, that gets bored easily, that are tricked into being consumers, I immediately think of myself. I'm probably already one of those students that have fallen into the trap because no matter how much of this Gatto says is true, I still can't picture another way to "success" other than through college. Yes, I can learn to be insightful through reading and working alone, but society still demands that piece of paper, that "permanent record" that describes you through a list of grades and numbers, in order to let you get anywhere high in life.

Freire explains the concept of the banking approach where teachers are merely there to deposits facts into the students, described as the containers. The more deposits these students accept into their bins, the less likely they are to critically think about them. In school these students gradually adapt to their passive roles and soon enough they come to accept the idea that they are merely spectators, not "re-creators." They are not taught leadership skills, just enough that will allow them to work FOR the world and the path the creators are leading.

The solution here is to break the banking concept and somehow have the teachers and students form a relationship where both groups are learning and teaching at the same time. The banking concept looks at students as objects they can exploit. But if teachers become more willing to communicate with their students, the class would have a better sense of reality, one where they can recognize themselves as individuals and as leaders, rather than tools. By sharing ideas, students can finally think critically and be humanized from their forms of containers. I see a lot of this in SOF. I feel like a lot of schools now are dumping the banking concept. Our teachers are interested in what we have to say rather than clogging our minds with theirs. During discussions, everyone's thoughts are listened to and challenged, even the teachers.

Delpit proposes the idea of Culture of Power. Basically, there are certain rules and codes that schools and those in power goes by. So unless your family teaches you these rules, it's hard to succeed in school if their methods of teaching are more adaptable for some kids and less for you. These codes include "linguistic forms, communicative strategies, and presentation of self; that is, ways of talking, ways of writing, ways of dressing, and ways of interacting." Culture of Power is determined by the upper and middle class. So lower class members usually suffer academically because the strategies these schools are teaching with are not tailored for them but rather the higher socio-economical classes.

Delpit says that "If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier." Does this mean that in order to acquire power, you have to change the way you act and present yourself? Whatever happened to equal opportunity? We are constantly told to be ourselves, yet in reality, the way to success is to conform to the rich. The only way we can change this is the change the school system and change the ways they approach teaching. This reminds me of a song we heard in class that talked about how schools should be teaching how to stay of jail, how to avoid gang violence, and how to keep away from drugs instead of the stupid stuff they're teaching now. Every culture has to be approached differently otherwise they wouldn't find their education appealing enough. If they're not willing to learn, they're not going to learn, and they're not going to see it as an education. We need to determine the different cultures and the different needs of each, then everyone can have an equal education. It's unfair that the higher classes always remain in the higher position while the poor stay poor, especially when every child has the same potential. It all depends on how they are being taught and how well they are responding to that education.

During the interview with Fanning, he tells us about his own personal experiences. He went to college at Skidmore and came out a rocker. After touring and realizing he's too old for it anymore, he turns to teaching. He says the greatest gift of all is education. Cliche but true, he insists. He explains why SOF is so much more different from other schools. Our students are much more diverse in academics and classes that it's much more of a challenge to teach everyone at the same time. Yet, this is why he likes the school so much. He wants to conquer the culture of power, so that not only do the "right students win" but the expected "losers" win too. He's also determined that the school not be fully teacher goal oriented, but also for the students' goals to be considered as well.

This tells me that the school is really looking after the students' interests. Fanning is really genuine about providing SOFers with an education, where no one is left behind. It's too bad I didn't realize it until now, last semester of senior year. Him being a rock star turned principal tells me that no matter what path you choose to take in life, you'll still need an education. Hearing him talk about SOF kind of answers all the question I had over the years. I never understood why the school was so unique, nor did I understand why the best of the best wanted to teach here. But I guess the school's "savior" stance really appeals to the faculty.

HW 49

Our class wasn't able to finish filming our video project. My contribution was that I came up with the idea for the story as well as the script. I also played one of the extras in the "film." But our storyline is basically shot from the point of view of a certain group of students. Faced with a teacher who chooses to play favorites, the group of three underachievers are constantly serving as victims to the teacher's condescending attitude. Finally fed up with the teacher's behavior, Alex the protagonist decides to start studying for the class. At the end, her and her friends ace the finals. The teacher ends up receiving all the credit for the students' improvement.

Citing from today's discussion about Culture of Power, the system (in this case, the school) serves to make sure that the right people win and the right people lose. We see that in the film, Mr. A favors the bright and enthusiastic students over the rebels and non obedient. These so called favorites are exactly the type of clones institutions like to praise, because even though the students don't know it yet, their skills will only be exploited. So what they see as individual success is only an illusion, because the only people who are really benefiting from this is the government. The rebel, Alex, refuses to be categorized as one of them, claiming that she doesn't care for Mr. A's approval. She studies however, to demonstrate that she has the ability to "win." She just chooses not to. If winning meant becoming one of society's "robot sheeps," then she rather not become one of the high profiled students. She aces the test, but ends up tossing it in the trash anyway as a way of telling the school that she couldn't care less for society's expectations. Basically the message trying to be sent out here is that schools get us (the favorites) to work hard by creating the illusion that we will be awarded by doing so. However, the truth lies in the fact that we are not favored out of appreciation, rather than that they see potential exploitation in us (in this case, for the teacher, he's using the students to gain approval from the principal).

Most of the films we've watched in class involved the teachers as the protagonists and also as the savior. In Dead Poets Society, Mr. Keating teaches his kids to defy authority and "seize the day." In Freedom Writers, Hilary Swank plays the teacher who saves her economically challenged kids from falling into the hoodlums by having them write journals and stories. Many of these stories are composed of similar story lines. These kids are stuck in these molds they've grown up in (the kids in DPS led structured lives and the kids in Freedom Writers are surrounded by violence and low expectations), a teacher shows up, and somehow changes their lives by helping them find out who they are and the greater purposes they have in life.

In our film however, the student is seen to have "saved" herself. Realistically, a teacher can't change a whole class. Alex's success on the test is no credit of his. She realized that she didn't need his help to achieve her own success. She worked hard on her own just so she can prove to Mr. A that she sees the phoniness behind what we call school (the teaching of obedience and cloning) and refuses to accept their teachings. Rather she learns the material herself while still fully committing to her rebel role by not listening to authority and not accepting their praises, to show that she is capable of learning, but just chooses not to do it their way.

In real life, I see very little salvation attempts in school. Many schools are teacher centered, where curriculum and textbooks are enforced with only one goal in mind. They make sure everyone learns the skills they "need" to learn so they can turn out the way the system wants them to turn out - the clones that will help heighten the economy and the big corporate guys. SOF's philosophy seems to be a lot different though. The school is more student centered. It pays more attention to the goals of the student rather than solely the goals of the school and teachers (Fanning). It encourages free and critical thinking (Habits of Mind). Classes are involved in discussions a lot, where we are able to offer ideas outside of the box and listen to others' as opposed to only hearing the ideas of the teacher's. The school has also replaced Regents with Exhibitions, a much more meaningful experience where we are able to research our own topics and relate them to our own interests. Through this process, we are able to enhance our writing skills, presentation skills, as well as gaining a deeper understanding of our topic. By not suppressing us, and instead encouraging us to speak up, SOF's philosophy can be considered as an attempt at salvation.

HW 48: Treatment for Savior/Teacher Movie

Scene 1:
It's the middle of class. The teacher is walking around the classroom checking on the students as they work on a problem. He gives some a thumbs up, while others a condescending chuckle and a shake of his head. Others, he totally ignores and walks by. It's obvious he plays favorites. As he approaches the front of the room, he asks for volunteers to come up to the board to show their work. A bunch of students raise their hands. He picks a student sitting in the back corner of the room. The kid reluctantly goes up and writes his work on the board. The teacher declares it wrong and has his favorite student explain why it is so. The kid in the back of the room (let's call him Jay) lets out a pissed off sigh, picks up his book bag and leaves the classroom.

Scene 2:
It's lunch time. Jay and his band of underachieving friends get together and discuss the event in class. They're complaining. The teacher's favorite student, Chris overhears the conversation and comes up to them. He tells them that there's no one to blame but themselves for being dumb and uneducated. They get into an argument, almost breaking into a fight, but don't because of security. Chris exits, leaving the group fuming with rage.

Scene 3:
Classroom scene happens again for the next couple of days, where the teacher is repetitively shown to favor some students and ignore others. Jay is leaning back in his chair, peering under his hood. He observes the way his teacher is mistreating his friends. His mind replays memories of the past couple of months in this classroom as well as the past years with his other teachers. He thinks about his family's lack of expectations for him and feels hopeless. But this feeling is quickly run over by the anger he feels for his teacher and himself. He realizes that Chris was partially correct about his underachieving nature.

Scene 4:
Jay gathers up a bunch of his friends and classmates and encourages them to take part in a series of study sessions. Studying montage comes on. They continue to not participate in class despite knowing most of the information now.

Scene 5:
Finals roll around and the group ace it. The teacher and the rest of the class are extremely surprised and bewildered. They suspect that they are cheating. So the group takes a second test and aces that as well.

Scene 6:
The principal praises the teacher for such an achievement. The teacher accepts it and convinces himself that this was in fact his deed. Jay and the group shake their heads and smile as if they were sympathizing for their teachers behavior. They pick up their book bags and exit the last day of school.

HW 46: Research and Writing

The Catcher in the Rye is essentially about a boy who abruptly leaves college and wanders the streets of New York City for days without a purpose. The only reason explicitly given was that he was fed up with how phony the people around campus were becoming. He makes several encounters with old friends and a lot of strangers. He mentions his fantasy of being "the catcher in the rye," someone who rescues children from falling off a cliff. At the end though, even after contemplating to run away, he decides to stay and give college another go.

My topic is in regards to college majors/curriculum and career decisions. The book focuses a lot on growing up and acknowledging your purpose. We struggle between career choices just as Holden struggles between going to school or leaving it for good. Of course, his decision actually includes an option outside of an institution.

Holden's abandonment and lack of commitment toward college defies the norm. His critiques of society and their phoniness obtains him some individuality. His dream of being the catcher in the rye-catching children and saving them from the harshness of the world-ends before he even fully acknowledges it. In the end, he was unable to escape the institutions, thus demonstrating how powerful they are even in the face of a guy who has been expelled time after time.

This raises the question of individuality and whether it can only be achieved outside of institutions. Is the path of choosing a college-given major or a career, a path that can help you find "yourself?" Or is wandering the city a better way to escape all the phoniness and help you understand who you really are?

Without school, Holden is constantly searching for company or some sort of activity. Depression and crankiness kicks in when he runs out of stuff to do. Institutions are made to propel our lives, to create the illusion that we are going somewhere. From high school, to college, to graduate school, to our careers and families, the steps have been designed before we even know it had to be built. These institutions give us options yes, but these options are binded by false pretenses that tell us we are choosing the type of person we would like to be. In reality, we are all the same- tools of society.

These systems serve as distractions from the one thing that scares us most: isolation. Society is in constant search of entertainment, deathly afraid to acknowledge the fact that we each are ultimately alone. Alone, we are no one. When we are forced to become spectators of institutions (as Holden was), we recognize the phoniness. We grasp our true tool identities. When we're participators however, we subconsciously will ourselves to accept the phoniness because we are afraid to do so otherwise.

HW 44: Big Expectations for School

Personally I thought Obama's speech was really inspirational. When I first heard it, it gave me a new sense of hope and encouragement. When you look at it more carefully though, it's easy to identify a feeling of "baby patriotism" as Sam had said. He makes a constant reminder that the amount of work we do today will determine the future of our nation. If we quit, not only are we quitting on ourselves, we are "quitting on [our] country." It is surprising to hear the president give us a speech that we've heard so many times before. I agree that education has its benefits, but the way he expresses it makes it seem like our sole purpose is to serve the country as opposed to following our dreams (ie. basketball star, singer etc.) His transcendent belief offers us a concrete route to achieve success in the future. However, his focus on the future contradicts the immanent mode which focuses on the here and now, thus providing little incentives for students. This reminds me a bit of The Stranger, and about how while the rest of society was living according to the future's absolute, Meursault chose to only live for the moment and disregarded everything else.

HW 42: More Research and More Thinking

Is Society successful in structuring our education system in a way where structure overrides creative thinking? In other words, are they turning us into puppets or encouraging us to become free thinkers?

Society has successfully convinced us to tailor ourselves into an extremely structured environment where we are taught the things they/we believe should be taught and where we create the kinds of goals they pressure us into feeling we should have. After pinning us down and forcing children books, math, and visions of being a scientist or a politician down our throats, we now swallow them voluntarily and are even paying good money to do so (myself included). From my interviews, I've came to the conclusion that we should be deciding our life goals based on life experiences, and not solely on the things we learn in school and from textbooks. It's also wrong, the amount of pressure that is put on students these days, through grades, and classes, and testing etc. In my opinion, education should allow more free thinking and provide a more flexible curriculum where students would be motivated by their interests rather than getting that next A and doing their society and parents proud.

Given my personal experiences, I think a lot of my efforts are motivated by my parents and the idea that excelling in a class means you're smart, and that you're approved of, that you're good enough. Coming from a family with 7 other female cousins, all around the same age as me, and all competing for our family's recognition, made it seem even more necessary to fit in. I'm glad that I've got the chance to learn about all this stuff, but like many others, the structure grows old and your crave for learning, your curiosity isn't met by the classes they provide. I start to lack incentive and motivation. I start to question what is the point? I don't even know what I really want anymore because I've been blinded by the intense focus I had for school over the years.

School doesn't provide the experience that is needed to determine a life's path. It only provides you with facts and knowing facts isn't going to help us find out what we want to do with our lives as Imani said. It'll maybe get a lot of us to become puppets of society one day, but I think a lot of people are realizing that now and are attempting to find something they are passionate about that they can do with their lives. So I guess my point is, students now realize that we need more of an incentive to succeed in life than what education has to offer. We need to discover what we love, what we enjoy doing, what will make our life worthwhile, as opposed to just going through the motions and letting the government decide what we will contribute to society.

HW 41: Initial Internet Research on Schooling

Hansen, Randall S. "Choosing a College Major: How to Chart Your Ideal Path." Quint Careers Quintessential Careers, Web. 24 Feb 2010. http://www.quintcareers.com/choosing_major.html

This is a guide for those who need help choosing a major for college. They encourage you to evaluate your interests, what really want and your strengths/skills before picking a major. They say that most people change their majors a couple of times before settling on one that they are comfortable with. Even after college, people change their careers up to 4-5 times and "no major exists that can prepare you for that!" So the major we decide on in college is primarily to set up up for our first job.

This guide is pretty honest and refreshing. Usually, students are pressured when it comes to choosing the "right" major and are warned to choose carefully. Growing up, ideas of a career were always brewing in the back of my mind. Everything done in school was to benefit my future. It was always don't get distracted and focus on your schoolwork because that's what's most important and you will always have time for fun in the future. Coming this far, most of us are afraid of screwing it up by picking the wrong major or career path and end up being miserable in our little cubicles. This article relieves my position a bit, knowing that I will have the option of turning back and if anything and it'd be okay to change my career according to to my changes in interest. Still, it's hard to imagine myself making radical changes like that when my family and not to mention the rest of society is a stick in the mud about measuring success financially rather than how much you enjoy your job.

McKay, Dawn Rosenberg. "Ten Myths About Choosing a Career How to Chart Your Ideal Path." About.com Guide. The New York Times Company, Web. 24 Feb 2010. http://careerplanning.about.com/od/careerchoicechan/a/myths_choice.htm

The article gives a list of 10 myths about career choosing that people often believe to be true. It talks about how it's possible to turn a hobby into a career, how the "best career" list shouldn't be the only reason for picking a job because conditions often change, how a career that your friend is enjoying might not necessarily mean that it would fit you, and how much more work it takes to build a career than simply choosing one and expecting things to fall into place etc. It's also similar to the first one because it stresses the point of aiming for your interests and skills and that money shouldn't be the biggest factor in your decision.

The list reflects the slow decay of society's traditional values. We are all encouraged to find a job where the number one factor is how much you would enjoy working there for the next 40 years. The idea of the American dream is slowly starting to evolve. Our dream is to not only to become rich and successful, but to also achieve that through things we enjoy doing.

McGuire, Jeff. "Choosing a Major in College." College VIew. Hobsons, Inc., Web. 24 Feb 2010. http://www.collegeview.com/choosing_a_major_in_college.html

This article explains why it's so important to pick the right major because it is directly related to choosing the right career. A lot of jobs/careers nowadays have really high standards and if you want to compete, your best bet would be to go to college and earn some skills. "It is important to make yourself as marketable as possible." It also provides you with a list of questions you might want to consider while choosing your major such as "Do you enjoy hands-on work?" or "Do you like to travel?"

Many times though, people seem to have either way too many answers for these questions or none at all. Both pose a problem to figuring what you want in the long term. The article seems to expect you to already have identified yourself, to already know your strengths, personality, and interests, and to score on your first try. They don't provide much of an alternative for those who aren't yet sure about who they are or what they want to do in life.

"Classes: The Reason You’re Here." Sparknotes. SparkNotes LLC, Web. 3 Mar 2010. http://www.sparknotes.com/college/life/page7.html

This page explains the process of choosing your college courses/classes. They talk about finding a wide range of electives you can sign up for so that when it comes time to choose a major, you'd have a broader range of knowledge to choose from. It also points out the fact that most freshmen don't have any idea what their major is going to be yet, so it's recommended to have a well rounded schedule. It also brings up your academic advisor. "Think of your academic advisor as your lifeline to putting together the best possible schedule for your four-year plan... Your advisor is also the person with whom you’re going to discuss your prospective major."

If you click back on the "College Home" page, you will see a list of subjects that is supposed to prepare you for college. I think this further emphasize the fact that college is viewed as such a crucial point in life. Overall though, I think the list of articles are pretty helpful and reflect college in a realistic way.

"How to Choose College Courses." eHow. eHow, Inc., Web. 3 Mar 2010. http://www.ehow.com/how_11246_choose-college-courses.html

This how to guide offers a more basic approach to picking out classes. It recommends sitting in on a bunch of classes before "committing for the entire term." It also talks about choosing electives after you find out what your major is going to be.

I think the guide is sort of helpful but probably is too vague to help you figure out exactly what you want. Its repetitiveness sounds like the things your college would tell you. Therefore, there's not much there that you probably don't already know.

Additional Research

• http://www.ehow.com/how_4462027_choose-right-major.html
• http://www.university-college.net/articles/choosing-college-major.php
• http://homeworktips.about.com/od/preparingforcollege/a/majors.htm
  

HW 40: School Interviews & Synthesis

Part A:

Rowena

How has education benefited your life so far, if it did at all?
It taught me morals and the reality of life. It also taught me history so that I'm not ignorant of what happened prior to when I was born, and math is also important because everything in this world is revolved around math.
So you're genuinely interested in learning about those stuff?
Yes, just not repetitively. I think history's interesting. Math is interesting. English is kind of useless after 6th grade.
Would you go to school if it weren't necessary or if your parents weren't there to pressure you into going?
I'd still go, just not high school, 'cause high school's kind of useless.
Do you agree that the structure of public education is dictating and propagandish in a way ? Or no ?
That depends on the class. Like Math can't be but I think History can be biased sometimes.
Can you list your mood in order from the beginning of your school day to the end ?
Well, I'll tell you about tomorrow (day after break) how I would feel. Walking to school, I would feel like crap and I don't want to go. First 3 periods won't be that bad. Then English comes along and it's like FML 'cause it's so boring. Then it's Math, and it's alright because the teacher's fun. Then it's lunch/ Then I have government and it's like "ughhhhh" again. Sometimes it's interesting so it varies, but majority its like "blah."
Okay so I take it that your general feeling about school is negative and only positive when you're learning about stuff you like ?
Uh yes! That's why I loved middle school and elementary school 'cause I actually did something and took classes I like. The classes I take now is like pointless 'cause I would forget it in like 2 years. It's like whats the point..
So if you had the chance to create your own curriculum you would ?
Yes, and I would like school wayyy wayy better.

Sweetie

How has your education benefited you so far in life?
Okay I'm a classical pianist and really, I'm just good at music, so I guess I would speak in a situation of music. Music makes you smarter, because of all the theories behind it. I read from a book that females are born naturally smarter than male because of their brain structure. But music helps males achieve an intellectual balance with girls. So I guess music makes me smarter? Also, every single musician who studies music is SMART in math 'cause of the music theory we learn. (Gives example, but its really long and I don't think it's really necessary).

About the way your music classes are structured, do you think it encourages creativity or do they expect you to learn stuff a certain way?
In LaGuardia, I think the music classes are well structured. I mean for performance classes obviously everyone expects to learn by playing instruments and showing the skills we learn. Everyone participates. But theory class is like normal class; you sit in and listen. In terms of creativity, really you would only see that in Jazz or composition, if we are still on music, since jazz includes so much improvisation which you need to know a lot of things to pull off. Composition allows creativity, but there are a lot of theory rules you can't break. Classical musicians don't have much freedom; we are all slaves of music.

If you had a choice, would you rather stay learning in the structural environment you're in or switch to something that would allow more creative freedom?
Since I don't really know if there's a better/more creative way for our classical music training...I would say stay in 'cause looking at all the important famous composers, Mozart studied Bach. Everyone needs to study Bach 'cause he's a genius. Beethoven did to. And then, modern composers study Beethoven, like Stravinsky. So it's really like, if you study these, and if you are the one to master things, then yeah you are a great musician. There's nothing such as good and bad in terms of music, 'cause it is art. Everyone has different perspectives. But in order to be "good" means getting the popular vote. I hope you know what I mean haha.

Imani

How have your education helped you so far in life? Has it helped you find out what you want to do?

Education has helped me to be more focused on my future and aspire to be better than those who choose to do nothing with their lives. If I wasn't in school, I doubt that I would ever want to go to college or learn new things. School made me grow to love learning and maturing. It didn't help me figure out what I want to be.

I want to be a singer actress author and those don't have much to so with school. But it is because of school that I want to major in the music industry. I see the importance of learning to read music, music theory, music production and all that stuff. Without school, I would've gone into the field with my raw talent as the only thing I could offer.

Are you content with the way public schools are structured or would you aim for a more flexible curriculum?

I think that high school, at least the last two years should be structured like college. Seniors should be able to if not pick their classes, then be able to pick whether we have class Monday Wednesday and Friday, or twice a week like in college. We should have the chance to get used to doing our own scheduling and taking classes that we like as well as classes we need. It's a hassle, boring, and ineffective to take classes that have nothing to do with life in the outside world or with what we want to do in the future.

Do you agree that school has a way of just dictating all the information that goes into our heads or do you feel more like it encourages free thinking?

I think in general though, the public school system hammered us over the head with knowledge. It isn't fair because it doesn't allow us to experience what it's like to think for ourselves and question things. These are things we need to do in order to really learn and in a lot of schools people don't get this chance.

Part B:

My first interviewee seems to be a lot more against the idea of public education and the courses she's subjected to take. But she knows that's what her future requires and she's doing the best she can to just go through the motion until she graduates and have the chance to pursue what she really likes. My third interviewee is similar in the same way that after a while, things tend to get repetitive and that we should have an earlier chance to pick out classes of our own interests. She seems to be more aware of how school has created a foundation for her to build up on, how it has matured her as a student (someone who wants to learn how to think as opposed to someone who wants things blown into her mind).

My second interviewee's responses from a music student's standpoint was especially interesting. Her definition of a great musician seems to be a person who has absorbed all the theories and knowledge of music, and plays music within these boundaries. She even says "we are all slaves of music." She brings up the names of a few famous classical musicians and points out how each of them have been through musical training. I'm assuming that these musicians did more than just learn and imitate art because if that was really all there was to it, then they wouldn't be so well recognized. Mastering a subject just for the heck of mastering it shouldn't be what education is about. It should be about using the things you learned to go off in different directions and critically thinking about them, as opposed to worshiping and being satisfied with just knowing the facts.

HW 39: First School Assignment

Questions

• Should education be optional? Is it fair that opportunity is given and measured by how many years you've attended school and how many degrees you have?
• Does school limit or liberate your thinking?
• Is the government more of a parent to us than our own parents are?
  

Ideas

• School puts so much unnecessary pressure on students (ie. SATs) that we, both students and parents become so obsessed with the idea of being academically perfect that we are blinded from a larger sense of purpose
• School has created the illusion that a high GPA = a successful future. This road to success has been put up onto such a high pedestal that a lot of people have failed to recognize that there are many other ways to achieve your dreams. It's not all about book smart.
• Everything's a competition. In school, we compete against other students. At work, we compete for promotions. Collectively, as a nation, we compete against other nations. Education = money = power and dominance, therefore school is sort of like a military training camp. Instead of fighting a physical war, we're trained to fight financially and economically.
  

Experiences

• I feel like school occupies too much of my life. There's always too much information being crammed into my head and it gets so hard to handle. When I do get information down though, I forget it once the unit is over.
• I used to always find at least one happy reason to come to school but now everyday feels like a drag.
• School encourages a lot of participation but I don't like talking aloud in class or presenting.
  

School can be seen in two of the extreme ways. One, it raises kids to become successful leaders of the future. Higher education usually equates to higher knowledge and intelligence. I don't think that's necessarily right though. School can only do so much. Some people have natural intelligence that others who have been to school for 20 years still can't achieve.

Two, like Vincent said, "It's a factory." It encourages kids to only achieve their dreams through their system. School is good in the way that it surrounds us with a diverse group of people with different ideas and opinions to offer. But I also feel like that cushions us more so than it liberates us. We are literally stuck with same group of people for years. We start to feel pressured into thinking, talking, and acting the way our peers do. This shuts us down from the potential person we could've been had it not for the box we've been cooped up in. So in a way, school does tend to create like-minded students.

Einstein used to be the worst student. He sucked in school but still he ended up being the world's greatest genius. This goes to show that thinking is something that we can learn on our own and doesn't need to be taught. Students usually end up thinking somewhat in the same way because they are taught by the same teacher and with the same ideas. But learning to think for yourself and figuring out what way suits you best aren't things that can be taught.

HW 38: Art Project Cool

The Cool Fool

The Cool Fool from Sandy G. on Vimeo.

We decided to shoot the video from the point of view of the new kid's classmates. Originally, we were going to shoot two different scenarios, one where everyone would think he's cool and the other uncool. But somehow, we ended up mixing the two and had a range of characters with different opinions about him because that just seemed more realistic. Instead of the nonchalant guy, we replaced it with someone who tries too hard to capture attention. He captures some and he hardly others. The ones he do capture though range from lust and admiration to annoyance and disgust. We were aiming for an The Office feel with the interviews. We hope that our portrayal of the scenario was realistic enough because hardly do we see anyone who is admired fully by everybody or hated by everybody. For every hater you earn, you earn someone else who likes you and vice versa. Cool is based on opinion and point of view and although that point can't be made any more obvious, we wanted to show a reenactment of how the situation can be like.

We didn't really do the video in order. We filmed a bunch of clips in random order and then edited them together into a storyline. We recorded a couple of the interviews first, then the gym scene, then the cafeteria scene, and after that a couple more interviews to link the scenes together. It was a little frustrating at first because we weren't sure what to say in our interviews given the fact that there was no scene to refer to but we ended up adapting the scenes to the interviews. I did a little of the filming, and helped with the editing as well.

Making art is cool, but I think it's only considered cool when you do it well. Art is basically self expression aka originality in the making, which is what Cool is all about. Cool is knowing yourself, being able to define yourself, and being different from the crowd. It's cool to be artistic and being good at expressing yourself through words, painting, film etc. I don't think I'm the creative type. I used to think I was and then I saw how much better people were at drawing, making videos, writing poetry etc. For example, Rachel and I came across a guy at Union Square the other day making a picture on the ground with nothing but colored sand and his hands. There was a big crowd surrounded his artwork and everyone was just in awe, taking pictures and stuff. We found out the next day that his picture was in the newspaper. When people create something we've never seen before, it makes us curious to know where the idea came from. I think having creative skills sort of shows how much more original and abstracted minded you are as a person.

HW 37: Cool Paper Done Draft

Being born with a cultural map is a given. Following it is not. When we are thrust with images of cool, there's that temptation to adorn ourselves with that image but more than likely, we find ourselves repeating a cycle of actions that only brings us temporary satisfaction. Self importance is like our energy drink, giving us motivation and a feeling of meaning that keeps us content with the life we're leading. We thrive off compliments and high social titles. But what happens when we can't keep up with cool? We stick a label and sharpie "empty" on it. That's the excuse we give ourselves to justify our chase for cool. Many blame the media for corrupting our minds, blindfolding us with images of cool, and keeping us from aiming for a larger sense of purpose. But it is ultimately our own selves we have to overcome. We are puppets of our desires and of the "hole" in our hearts. It is our own individual choice to decide whether there really is a hole and whether aggrandizing ourselves is self fulfilling or not.

Often we hear about people leaving each other and taking parts of each other with them. We hear about people trying to find that missing piece to fill out that hole in their heart. When we are feeling lonely, we are describing a state of lacking something. Are we really lacking anything? Or do we just convince ourselves that we'll feel better if we had this or that? When we feel like we are lacking something, we purposely go out and find something to fill the "void", whether it is a person to fill our hearts or a hobby to fill our schedule. We’ll settle for anything that will make us feel productive and let us believe what we're doing is meaningful. Otherwise we'll just feel like another ant on earth, neglected and insignificant.

Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher believed that the emptiness felt by our generation was a result of spiritual emptiness. People have become lazy thinkers where everything they try to figure out is more about scientific logic than self acknowledgment or "enlightenment" as the Buddhists call it. The feeling of emptiness is referred to as the "hunger of the soul" and in order to fill it up people turn to "food, excitement, substances, relationships, [or] consumer products." "A carefully cultivated cool pose can keep the lid on the most intense feelings and violent emotions" (Anatomy of an Attitude). We attempt to stuff our emptiness with materials and cool poses. Nonetheless, these things can only provide temporary happiness.

In the Buddhist's point of view, letting go of all desires, or rather being able to understand that our desires are merely false interpretations of our bodies' urges is an essential part of the road to enlightenment. Therefore, this belief that "Oh, if my nose was a little bit narrower or if I had these new boots, my life would suck a little less," is false. Filling the gap with tangible items will not satisfy it. Instead, we need to come to terms with ourselves. The Stoics aimed to "overcome destructive emotions," such as the feeling of emptiness, to find inner peace (Kate). When we get rid of this blur, we will see that the hole is all but an illusion, and we should not let our emotions control us nor lead us into the chase of cool.

Cool as we learned, is all but an act. It consists of a protagonist and an audience. Of course, we all consider ourselves protagonists and everyone else the audience. This is where the aggrandizing and the process of filling the void come in. We raise our voices in the hallway as Andy S. says, we tattoo our bodies as self expression, we dress like they do in the magazines, etc. Attention is what we thrive on. Every scene is an expedition set for success or failure. It is a success if we are able to convince someone of the image we are trying to put forth, but a failure when we are challenged and end up losing face. In the Chinese language, we use "mo mien" (no face) to describe embarrassment or that the person is ready to hide from further confrontational moments. This is used similarly in the English language as well.

We're all identified as some type of storybook character whether we mean to come across as that image or not. Some archetypes are regarded more highly than others depending on the person. This is where cool comes into play. As some strive to be heroes, others strive to be rebels. These are all poses we take on to fill in our emptiness. Otherwise, who are we? Without an identity, we will be regarded at the bottom of the spectrum, as antagonists or even worst, as extras. So we adapt to trends, and speech, hoping that our audience will notice and snag us a spot somewhere high on the social ladder. We have determined throughout the unit that it is impossible to not fit into a archetype because running away from one will only put you in another. So where do we go from there? If we can't escape this, then what? "Don't fit into stupid roles" as Andy S. said. I agree. But then again, who’s to judge what's stupid or not? What is stupid based on? The number of tattoos you have? The number of times you take drugs a day? The amount of control you have towards the media's marketing tactics? No matter how obvious we might think it is that one role is better than another, it will always remain an opinion. Because I can say, it is stupid to be the hero, or the revolutionary, or the insightful loner, but it is cool to be the player, the slut, or the evil step mom and there's nothing anyone can do to prove that I am wrong.

There's no denying that we all have our own tailored image of coolness. Based on an interview we conducted, we had some people tell us who they thought were the coolest celebrities. One said, Jay Z, because he's "makin' money." Another said, Susan Sarandon and Gloria Steinem because of their dedication towards giving back to the community. It was clear that they both admired celebs that resembled themselves in some way. The first one was dressed in very baggy clothes with shades and was listening to his iPod. It seemed predictable that he was into artists like Jay-Z. The second person was a female who told us she was into volunteer work, similar to the acts of her stars. This shows that the way we picture cool does play a role in shaping who we are as people.

We were taught to be who we are. There's no authenticity in us to tap into. Each of us is a product made collectively from the things we view as cool. From the day we were born, our minds are constantly taking in what we consider cool and filtering out the things we don't like. The things we choose to keep make up the cool image we strive to talk, act, dress, and be like. Quoted from Rachel's blog, "We try to combine their personal maps with ours, try to incorporate all ideas into one, and try to set a direction for our lives." We can say authenticity is having a combination of aspects in our personality that is unlike any other combination. But that's as close to individuality as we can get. Even if you say, "I don't care what others think of me," you're submitting yourself into an aspired image of being a nonchalant, carefree person. There's still no authenticity in that type of map.

I've been shaped by my community, my culture, my family, my friends, and my classmates. So basically, it's everyone. My parents and my friends have been the ones who fed into my work ethics. My Asian heritage has encouraged me to work hard, and no play. My dad would shell out as much money as I needed for books, but would never purchase any game system for me. This convinced me that intelligence was above all else. But I consider my sister to be one of the most influential characters in shaping who I am. Back then, she was all I aspired to be like. I dressed the way she dressed. I started wearing makeup because she wore makeup. I started talking back to my parents because I saw her do it. My first sip of alcohol, my first cutting were all supervised by her. I know it sounds silly but she was my main guidance for everything and she probably didn't even know it. I turned to her for everything and as the years passed I started realizing how much I resembled her and now that I am more aware of it, I'm attempting to become my own person. This unit has made me think harder about why I'm the person I am. Magazines shaped me, T.V. shaped me, New York shaped me, friends shaped me, school shaped me, teachers shaped me etc. We are all aftermaths of the cools we want to be. Who we are is undeniably a composite of stolen identities which are also composites of other stolen identities and so on and so forth.

We don't realize that there is no such state of true authenticity, which is generally believed to be the highest level of cool. That is why we are constantly trying to find it through clothes, through speech, through attitude, through self expression such as tattoos, piercings, music, etc. This search is a failure to begin with, if the goal is to seek individuality and something to fill our void with. We will always remain characters in a play, always in a box, and always with a map. If someone wants to fill up their hole with wealth and materials, so be it. If someone else wants to follow the Buddhist's teachings because they believe that emptiness and desire are merely illusions, so be that. To each their own, I say. There is no right and wrong when it comes to a topic based on perspective. "If you want to sing out, sing out. If you want to be free, be free. ‘Cause there's a million things to be, you know that there are" (Cat Stevens). It is our own individual choice to decide whether we want to give in to our feelings of emptiness and whether aggrandizing ourselves is self fulfilling or not.

Cool Rules, Anatomy of an Attitude (Dick Pountain & David Robins)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emptiness
Rachel's blog
Kate's blog
Andy Snyder
Cat Stevens "If You Want To Sing Out, Sing Out"
Street interviews with strangers

HW 36: Triangle Partner Help

Maggie:

1. Thesis (rewritten): Emptiness has driven us to find value through masking, adorning, and aggrandizing ourselves, a process repeated and updated regularly to ensure constant approval.

2. I liked how you focused mainly on roles and the fact that they are inescapable. A lot of us are born with lives that are already mapped out for us. And for those who don't have a parent dictating their every move, they're still limited and controlled by their environment. Therefore, we don't have as much freedom in picking our roles as one might like to think.
When we do choose to follow a role, we try to live up to it as much as possible because we believe that the more we fill up an archetype, the more we fill up our own holes and the empty feeling that comes with it. This is directly linked to the way we feel about ourselves. We want to feel important. And the only way to feel important is from the approval and attention of others. So we spice up our acts hoping for applause from the audience and the louder the applause, the higher our "value" becomes.

3. Stuff you should consider including:
- Now that we know roles are inevitable, how should we make the best of these roles?
- What are our options and which are the best ones?
- Make better transitions btwn. your paragraphs.
- Include more evidence like the stuff we read in class, Andy's lectures, student's blogs, your emptiness research, street and friend interviews, or talk about how you yourself fit into all this

Andy:

1. Thesis (rewritten): (Probably won't be as good as what yours already is) Coolness disconnects our mental beings from our physical, and encourages us down a strict path while eliminating the possibility of a life outside of the paths.

2. Your arguments are very clear cut and intriguing. It's hard to imagine life outside of the boxes though. You say by submitting to roles, we are forfeiting consideration for any alternative, but isn't the attempt to not play a role a role in itself? Even trying not to be cool has its own label. Is it possible to not strive to not strive for a role (did that make sense?), and to be completely oblivious of your own role and place in society?
Rather, I think that instead of separating it as roles and no roles, it'd make more sense to separate it into good roles and bad. The good would obviously be the ones that maximizes our awareness and connections with the world around us as you said. Cited from Anatomy of an Attitude, the current mainstream cool is "narcissism, ironic detachment, and hedonism." These are the roles with the most stubborn set of paths, and contain the most negligence towards the outside world. They are set deep within their boxes and are anything but past the perimeter.

3. Stuff you can include:
- Evidence and examples from readings, Andy, or other blogs
- how you fit into all this, personal examples
- an idea of what an alternative would be like? if not, what is your preferred pick out of the limited options/boxes presented to us?

HW 35 - Cool Paper Rough Draft

Being born with a cultural map is a given. Following it is not. When we are thrust with images of cool, there's that temptation to adorn ourselves with that image but more than likely, we find ourselves repeating a cycle of actions that only brings us temporary satisfaction. Self importance is like our energy drink, giving us motivation and a feeling of meaning that keeps us content with the life we're leading. We thrive off compliments and high social titles. But what happens when we can't keep up with cool? We stick a label and sharpie "empty" on it. That's the excuse we give ourselves to justify our chase for cool. Many blame the media for corrupting our minds, blindfolding us with images of cool, and keeping us from aiming for a larger sense of purpose in the world. But it is ultimately our own selves we have to overcome. We are puppets of our desires and of the "hole" in our hearts. It is our own individual choice to decide whether there really is a hole and whether aggrandizing ourselves is self fulfilling or not.

Often we hear about people leaving each other and taking parts of each other with them. We hear about people trying to find that missing piece to fill out that hole in their heart. When we are feeling lonely, we are describing a state of lacking something. Are we really lacking anything? Or do we just convince ourselves that we'll feel better if we had this or that? When we feel like we are lacking something, we purposely go out and find something to fill the "void", whether it be a person to fill our hearts or hobbies to fill our schedule. Anything to make us feel like we have something to do and that what we're doing is meaningful. Otherwise we'll just feel like another ant on earth, neglected and insignificant.

Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher believed that the emptiness felt by our generation was a result of spiritual emptiness. People have become lazy thinkers where everything they try to figure out is more about scientific logic than self acknowledgment or "enlightenment" as the Buddhists call it. The feeling of emptiness is refer to as the "hunger of the soul" and in order to fill it up people turn to "food, excitement, substances, relationships, [or] consumer products." Nonetheless, these things can only provide temporary happiness.

In the Buddhist's point of view, letting go of all desires, or rather being able to understand that our desires are merely false interpretations of our bodies' urges is an essential part of the road to enlightenment. Therefore, this belief that "Oh, if my nose was a little bit narrower or if I had these new boots, my life would suck a little less," is false. Filling the gap with tangible items will not satisfy it. Instead, we need to come to terms with ourselves. The Stoics aimed to "overcome destructive emotions," such as the feeling of emptiness, to find inner peace (Kate). When we get rid of this blur, we will see that the hole is all but an illusion, and we should not let our emotions control us nor lead us into the chase of cool.

Cool as we learned, is all but an act. It consists of a protagonist and an audience. Of course, we all consider ourselves protagonists and everyone else the audience. This is where the aggrandizing and the process of filling the void comes in. We raise our voices in the hallway as Andy S. says, we tattoo our bodies as self expression, we dress like they do in the magazines, etc. Attention is what we thrive on. Every scene is an expedition set for success or failure. It is a success if we are able to convince someone of the image we are trying to put forth, but a failure when we are challenged and end up losing face. In the Chinese language, we use "mo mien" (no face) to describe embarrassment or that that person is ready to hide from further confrontational moments. This is used similarly in the English language as well.

We're all identified as some type of storybook character whether we mean to come across as that image or not. Some archetypes are regarded more highly than others depending on the person. This is where cool comes into play. As some strive to be heroes, others strive to be rebels. These are all poses we take on to fill in our emptiness. Otherwise, who are we? Without an identity, we will be regarded at the bottom of the spectrum, as antagonists or even worst, as extras. So we adapt to trends, and speech, hoping that our audience will notice and snag us a spot somewhere high on the social ladder. We have vaguely determined throughout the unit that it is impossible to not fit into a archetype because running away from one will only put you into another. So where do we go from there? If we can't escape this, then what? "Don't fit into stupid roles" as Andy S. said. I agree. But then again, whose to judge what's stupid or not? What is stupid based on? The number of tattoos you have? The number of times you take drugs a day? The amount of control you have towards the media's marketing tactics? No matter how obvious we might think it is that one role is better than another, it will always remain an opinion. Because I can say, it is stupid to be the hero, or the revolutionary, or the insightful loner, but it is cool to be the player, the slut, or the evil step mom and there's nothing anyone can do to prove that I am wrong.

There's no denying that we all have our own tailored image of coolness. Based on an interview we conducted, we had some people tell us who they thought were the coolest celebrities. One said, Jay Z, because he's "makin' money." Another said, Susan Sarandon and Gloria Steinem because of their dedication towards giving back to the community. It was clear that they both admired celebs that resembled themselves in some way. The first one was dressed in very baggy clothes with shades and was listening to his iPod. It seemed predictable that he was into artists like Jay-Z. The second person was a female who told us she was into volunteer work, similar to the acts of her stars. This shows that the way we picture cool does play a role in shaping who we are as people.

We were taught to be who we are. There's no authenticity in ourselves to tap into. Each of us is a product made collectively from our images of cool. From the day we were born, our minds are constantly taking in what we consider cool and filtering out the things we don't like. The things we choose to keep make up the cool image we strive to talk, act, dress, and be like. Even if you say, "I don't care what others think of me," you're submitting yourself into an aspired image of being a nonchalant, carefree person. There's still no authenticity in that type of map. Quoted from Rachel's blog, "We try to combine their personal maps with ours, try to incorporate all ideas into one, and try to set a direction for our lives." We can say authenticity is having a combination of aspects into our personality that is unlike any other. But that's as close to individuality as we can get. Because who we are is undeniably a composite of stolen identities which are also composites of stolen identities and so on and so forth.

We don't realize that there is no such state of true authenticity, which is generally believed to be the highest level of cool. We believe that we can find it through clothes, through speech, through attitude, through self expression such as tattoos, piercings, music, etc. This search is a failure to begin with, if the goal is to seek individuality and something to fill our void with. We will always remain characters in a play, always in a box, and always with a map. If you feel that there's a hole in you and want to fill it up with wealth and materials, so be it. If you want to follow the Buddhist's teachings because you believe that emptiness and desire are merely illusions, so be that. To each their own. There is no right and wrong when it comes to a topic based on perspective. "If you want to sing out, sing out. If you want to be free, be free. There's a million things to be, you know that there are" (Cat Stevens). It is our own individual choice to decide whether there really is a hole and whether aggrandizing ourselves is self fulfilling or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emptiness
Rachel's blog
Kate's blog
Andy Snyder's Lectures
Cat Stevens "If You Want To Sing Out, Sing Out"
Street interviews with strangers