Behind the Fridge

Instead of making a blog post this week, I decided to comment on other people’s blogs.

The Dumping Ground

Peeling the Layers

Got Words?

Sheila Cantrell’s  Daily Paintings

JustRead!

Brandon Keim

Manjot Kaur

Great expectations.  They’re what we all feel.  That is, they’re what we all feel squeezed and grounded and shot at and cut up by in our everyday life.  Don’t get me wrong, high expectations are good, motivation is good, but to only have people expect the best and nothing less from you or anyone else is not good. 

Expectations start young.  We’ve seen it on news channels when crazy parents yell and even attack coaches and referees because their kid didn’t get to play or messed up.  Parents, schools, and society all pressure us to be the best and get the most.  To get the best grades.  To do the most community service.  To be in the most clubs.  To earn the most awards.  The problem is, no one can do that.  It’s a good thing to participate in all this, but not at the level many people push.  So, we feel like we must succeed or die trying, we end up dying.  Trust me, it’s a slow, painful death too.  Stress builds up immensely from these pressures throughout our high school years and continues on through college.

WebMD says that ”Students are put in a position of feeling they just must not stop.  They are not given a sense of support.  They are put in an environment where they are not accepted for themselves but only for what they are going to achieve.  All this builds stress.”   I’ve felt as if I could not stop, because to stop would be to fail, or at least get a B-, which often seems unacceptable.   WebMD goes on to say that “Parents are too often very preoccupied with seeing their children succeed and intolerant of anything other than excellence…We as schools and we as parents need to remind ourselves that sustained excellence is not natural.  It is not how we ourselves operate.”  In other words no one is perfect, therefore no one should expect perfection.  I am blessed with parents who do encourage and support and accept my best-whatever it may be.  However, many people are not.

Many websites that try to curb this phenomenon of stress contain “stress management tips,” like one on about.com that offers such advice as time management, organization, sleep, study skills, and my favorite-visualization.  That’s right.  To reduce stress, imagine yourself “achieving your goals.”  Unfortunatly, if our goals are outrageously high for ourselves, we will still never achieve them, leading to more stress from our repeated failures. 

I propose a different form of stress relief.  Realistic, challenging expectations.

The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory concurs: “Schools that establish high expectations for all students–and provide the support necessary to achieve these expectations–have high rates of academic success.”  High expectations (and help that comes with it) are good.  Think of all the students who were ignored all their lives.  Think of all those who were looked at as dropouts-before they ever thought of dropping out.  Think of how much a high, or even a low, expectation could have helped them. 

At the same time, people must not expect too much.  No one expects the next president of the United States to come out of a special education class.  Realistic expectations help kids to not feel like total failures.  For example, if you’re told your whole life that you could be an astronaut…but flunk out of college-not because you didn’t study-but because you just weren’t smart enough, how would you feel?  I would guess a little like a complete and utter failure.

Educators should not dumb down the curriculum to make students feel like they are succeeding, nor should they expect success in all areas of teenage life, whether sports, academics, or community service.  They should put the curriculum and their expectations at a level that tests them without tearing them to shreds.  A level that challenges students.  A level that is realistic to individual students.  That is the level we need.

Let’s face it, having to take language courses to graduate, but only having one choice, isn’t fun.  Sure, everyone should learn a second language in this globalizing age, but why must it always be Spanish?  I propose we learn a language that might benefit us further in international business.  Like, for example, Chinese. 

Chinese is the most spoken language.  In 2007 it became the most-used language on the Internet.  This language, although spoken nationally in Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and so on, is mostly centered in, of course, China.  

The economy of China is undergoing intense growth and the nation, as a whole, is becoming a large industrial power.   In recent years China has “accounted for one third of global economic growth.”  This will, and currently is, opening a wide variety of jobs in the newly formed markets.  However, the problem about working for or with someone is…you have to understand them.  To understand them, you must learn their language.  To learn their language, somebody must teach you their language.  For somebody to teach you their language, the schools and the state governments must accept and fund the need.

Many schools across the United States realize this necessity and have already acted on it.  In one directory, over two hundred sixty high schools teach Chinese.  That isn’t even up-to-date, for it leaves out Hall High School in Little Rock; the first high school in Arkansas to teach any Chinese courses.

So, why aren’t more schools teaching Chinese?  Why aren’t more people realizing the benefits learning Chinese will bring in this age?  If schools meant to teach and prepare us for the future, why aren’t they doing their job in the language department.  Some people do need to learn Spanish.  Others need to learn Chinese.  Why then, do schools rarely teach Chinese?  They should.

On page 68, James Gee is quoted as saying, “The fact is when kids play video games they can experience a much more powerful form of learning than when they’re in the classroom.” Do you think Pink agrees with this statement? Do you agree?

In class on Tuesday, the debate arose (for a short time) on how doctors should act.  Should they be impersonal or should they truly care for the patient?  Is there a difference?  Is one type of doctor better than the other?  Our class had people debating or rather, arguing, both sides.  Being a fanatical House fan, I thought that House, an extremely impersonal doctor, would make the better M.D.  I still hold that House is better than some extremely personal, gushy I-wanna-learn-all-about-you doctor, but after thinking some my view of the sides in the debate has changed.  

In Daniel Pink’s book, “A Whole New Mind,” Pink advocates a reform in the medical field.  He claims that doctor’s should equip themselves with empathy in diagnosing and treating patients.  In the debate, Pink supporters took one side, while fans of Dr. Gregory House took the other.  After re-reading Pink’s passage on health care I began to realize that his message and House’s technique may not be so dissimilar as I thought. 

Pink stated that the medical field itself is too “standardized.”  In other words, it’s too often “reduced to a set of repeatable formulas for diagnosing and treating various ailments(pg. 168).”  Anyone watching House knows that he is anything but standardized.  From breaking in to people’s houses, to temporarily killing a patient, to telling someone to drink his patient’s urine, House does everything possible to save his patients.  He claims to only want answers to peoples odd sicknesses, but is that really the whole truth? 

Pink writes that doctor’s should have empathy for their patients and fight for their patient’s survival.  In one episode, House allowed (and aided) a father to commit suicide so that the man’s son could have the man’s heart and thus live.  He already knew what was wrong, why did he still save the son?  Pink also wants doctors to find out about people, to hear their stories.  In Games (another episode), House takes on a drug-addicted rocker with all the symptoms of drug addiction because House doesn’t think it is drugs.  Most doctors would do the “standardized” thing and write the guy up as what he seems to be, nothing more.  It turns out the man has measles.  Not only does House reach this diagnosis, but also finds out more about the man, like his early folk music, which gives insight into his former character.  Pink also seems to want doctors to notice their patients, not the patient’s charts.  In “It’s a wonderful lie” House sees a patient only once before, but comments that she’s wearing a new shade of lip stick (which led to a diagnosis).  How many doctors notice the shade of their patient’s lip stick?

 Although House takes on a completely different persona from what anyone reading Daniel Pink’s book might imagine, there really isn’t much of a difference between House’s practice and Pink’s ideal doctor.  And so, the answer to the question if doctors should be personal or impersonal is solved.  Doctors should care.  They should notice their patients, whether the patient’s lip stick color, or attitude.  They should want to save their patients and do everything in their power to accomplish that.  The perfect doctor is one who is personal in such a way that he notices his patients without hindering his judgement.  The perfect example being Dr. Gregory House.

 I believe classes come almost exclusively in two categories.  The first is the one usually depicted and usually found that all students know.  They all know the bore of a monotone, dreary teacher.  They all know the extreme difficulty of staying in a conscious, aware state of mind.  Few students, however, are blessed with the second category-the opportunity to be in a class that is engaging and, amazingly, fun.  History, for my entire life, had been in the first category.  It wasn’t hard.  It wasn’t frightening.  It was just utterly boring.  Frankly, I didn’t believe anything could make history interesting.  Until this year. 

In Mr. Qualls’ AP US History class, I’ve learned more about history and enjoyed it more than in any other history class.  His style of teaching, of introducing deep, yet fascinating subjects on a level that forces us to think, not because we have to, but because we want to, is unique.  The Nations Game is a main part of this. 

Every year in the second semester, juniors from all of Mr. Qualls’ classes join together and form a world.  The world of Redo.  This year there are twenty-three countries with populations ranging from two to seven.  In each country there is a President or Dictator, a Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Treasury, and a National Security Advisor.  Each country draws out what country they are, what their national goal is, and what economic and military units they start out with from the Box of Destiny (As you may imagine, this is a heavily guarded Box and any infraction on a countries part results in a lightening bolt by the ‘creator’ Qualls.)  Countries may draw out a dictatorship with government controlled economy, or a democracy with a free-enterprise system.  National goals are highly secretive, but range from gaining so many economic units, to controlling a colony.  You heard right.  Colonies.  So far there have been three wars (almost four), all of which ended in the conquered becoming a colony.  To go into greater detail would take pages, so I’ll let you take a breath and know that it gets extremely complicated. 

The purpose of this game is to replay the 20th century.  Different stages of the game signify different time periods, first nothing but what we began with, then nuclear power and so on, even on to include terrorist organizations.  The Nations Game may be just a game, but it has already taught many a great deal about the world.  As one teaching site stated, “Games  have value for teaching… and for deepening discourse about topics.”  Already we are at a place where wars are occuring to try to secure more land in our game, while the United States is securing the Philippines and Cuba in our book.  Likewise, as colonies give us trouble, the Philippines gives the US trouble.  We see history taking place.  Mr. Qualls challenges us daily to prevent the disaster of World Wars.  I believe the statement, “Teaching the dynamics of world politics requires dynamic teaching methods,” stated in a conference paper on All Academic is true and Mr. Qualls has sucessfully found a dynamic teaching method.  The paper then went on to explain how student-ran simulations help a great deal in learning, especially on globalization, a topic we are soon to delve into. 

The Nations Game also helps us to imagine what world powers must do all the time.  We have to watch out who, if anyone, we give our national information to.  We have to try to seem helpful and peaceful at first, even if we aren’t.  We have to work together with other nations, setting up military alliances and trade blocs.  All of which must be done very quickly.  In the first stage we only have ten minutes to solve a national security question, send diplomatic notes to anyone, look over diplomatic notes sent to us, write out our national move, and make it happen.  In the last stage we will only have four minutes.  Mr. Qualls designed it this way to show us how quickly everything must be done in actual governments and to encourage us to think fast, because one wrong move could send a nuclear weapon straight at us.

Sometimes the game teaches us about politics within our countries as well.  Some secretaries are trying to “off” their president while some president’s are being controlled by their officials.  In my own country, my two officials are at odds with what they want.  One wants peace despite gains it could induce while the other jumps at every chance for war; regardless the consequences or other nation’s approval. This sends me straight into the problem every president of every nation has had to deal with-how to make everyone happy while still holding the main controler.  It’s not easy.  In fact, I’m beginning to think it’s impossible.

One thing I’ve learned that is possible, I’ve learned from Mr. Qualls.  It is this astonishing, brilliant, profound statement: History is awesome.  I applaud Mr. Qualls for making that possible.  Anyone who teaches high school-or any grade-knows how difficult it is to interest students, especially teenagers.  Some teachers do get to the point of interest, but their teaching, their lessons suffer from it.  Many educators and students alike imagine the task of teaching students all the material while they are awake and paying attention impossible.  I would gladly tell any of them that Mr. Qualls accomplished the impossible, and continues to everyday.

 Answer two of the following:

Question 1: Pink claims that businesses are turning more to stories to release and enhance their product.  Watch commercials for a small amount of time; do you see this change occuring?  Do you agree that this is a better way to sell a product?

Question 2: “Stories amuse; facts illuminate.  Stories divert; facts reveal.  Stories are for cover; facts are for real.”(pg. 102)  Discuss how Pink counters these statements.

Question 3:  Do you agree with Pink’s declaration that, “We are our stories”?  Why or why not?

On the eve of the New Hampshire primary in a coffee shop in Portsmouth, Hillary Clinton showed a rare display of emotion, choking up (and perhaps tearing up, as some say) when asked, “How do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?“  She replied that, “It’s not easy, and I could not do it if I just didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do,” and, “this is very personal for me.  Read the rest of this entry »

Some people never hear of words like anaphora or metonymy, others only wish they had not.  Like little kids fearful of the many monsters moving under their beds, some poor people are petrified when asked to find and understand the nightmare of rhetorical devices.   They panic and freeze, wide-eyed, in the dark as to what rhetoric is and where it is.  Many of those waiting for morning light to come, only believe rhetoric is in intimidating, archaic novels that no one can understand.  Rhetorical devices, rhetorical treasures can be found everywhere-in magazines, in newspapers, in commercials, in books-everywhere.

• Anaphora “The king of rock some say lives.  The lizard king is surely dead.  The king of France lost his head.  The King of Kings bled.”  Audio Adrenaline  “A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to sleep-” Proverbs 6:10
• Polysyndeton “Cause in our hearts and minds and souls we know”  Skillet
• Oxymoron ”what a gallant gentleman-highwayman you would have made” Jane Eyre
• Hyperbole “I felt like I was coming over the hill to heaven”  World Vision magazine p5
• Personification “Does not wisdom cry out, and understanding left up her voice?” Proverbs 8:1
• Asyndeton “We execrate it, we spit upon it, we trample it under our feet.”  William Lloyd Garrison, American Pageant p400

Rhetorical devices are not things to be feared or even avoided.  Rather, they help to convey an authors thoughts or opinions more so than normal, simple sentences over and over again can ever do.  They establish themselves, not as monsters, but as pearls, as treasures to seek and discover. 

Lubenow, Marvin.  “Bones of Contention”.  Baker Books, 2004.

Evolutionary Racism. Answers in Genesis. September 1998. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/racism.asp

“What’s the story behind the newest fossil found?”.  creationdefense.org.  March 31, 2001.  http://www.creationdefense.org/60.htm

“Scientists unearth early skeleton”.  bbc News.  March 7, 2005.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4322687.stm

“Prehuman Remains Found in Ethiopia”.  livescience.com.  January 19, 2005.  http://www.livescience.com/history/primitive_bones_050119.html