"Living Savage" Response

I thought the article "Living Savage" gave great insight into the underpriveledged school systems of America. Large cities, such as Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, and others continue to be racially segregated, in not just neighborhoods, but obviously schools and important places. The article highlights the broken school systems of these large cities extremely well by describing the 5th graders situation. It's upsetting that elementary school kids have to fight for what should be rightfully theirs in the first place, which is a safe and sanitary environment to learn in. I think it's incredible that 5th graders are learning about their government and petitioning at such a young age. Their teacher gave them a wonderful opportunity to learn, achieve, and create change for themselves. The knowledge they will aquire will surely not go to waste.

On the other hand, I wonder what kind of education they have to sacrifice in order to fight for a better school. I wonder how much math and science they can learn with the remaining time, drive, and yearning for knowledge they have left over from their main goals. While their efforts for their school is applaudable, I hope they still have the opportunities to be like any other 5th grade student. I hope they are able to learn about multiplication, division, and about scientific things, like the ecosystems and what molecules are. At the same time, I wonder if they are able to learn mathematic and scientific concepts, how useful these concepts would be within their lives.

"Should Undergraduates Specialize?" Response

I chose to reflect on this reading because I felt that the opinions of Patrick Allitt were ones with which I agreed firmly. The statement "I think more American colleges should offer the chance to specialize right from the outset to those students who want it" is very agreeable because some people know exactly what they want to do and know what they are passionate about. Like Allitt says, the American system is unlike the British because the student has to pay for those costs of education since they are benefiting from the education. If we are paying thousands of dollars, we should be able to choose if we want to specialize right away rather than having general education classes, considering we have to deal with the costs.

On the other hand, students also should have that choice to take general classes if they are undecided on a major, which is where I stand. Personally, I have no idea what I plan to major in, so taking a variety of classes has helped eliminate some possible ideas I've had for majors as well as sparked interests. All in all, I agree that there should be that choice of having early specialization.

One other point I wanted to touch on was the topic of college applications. In America, you cannot simply rely on academics and the grades you got in high school to be accepted into top colleges. Allitt makes the point that his daughter was encouraged early on to join many extracurriculars, anything that will make her stand out above just academics. While I do agree that people should be accepted on more than just grades, the extent is almost ridiculous. A lot of the clubs at my high school ended up with students who really did not care what the club was about and did not participate to their fullest potential. They would just join to be able to put it on their college applications and make themselves "look good". Just an interesting thought I guess.

"Should Undergraduates Specialize?" Response

The points that Allitt portrays in this essay were very intriguing to me. The way he presents the pros and cons of the schooling systems in Britain and America brought up certain points that I had never thought of before. Something that many people should reflect on is his argument that education isn't "one size fits all." There are ups and downs to both specialized and liberal arts education; consequently, neither of these systems are perfect. Allitt's essay provoked in me the idea that education will probably never fitsociety's exact needs or interests. Some students are ready for a vocational school right out of high school, and some need that broad spectrum that a liberal arts school provides so they can find what it is they want to pursue.

"Should Undergraduates Specialize?" response

Patrick Allitt makes it clear that college education in England is very different from an American education now. Anyone could have guessed that. I understand his point that students should specialize because it makes them much more aware of their field and they get a more in depth understanding of it; but, just has he made clear before, education has changed. A college education used to be rare, now it is a commodity. Basically every high school graduate goes to some type of college these days. There is not really a need to specialize in an undergraduate degree. The current undergrad degree is the equivalent to the old high school degree. Now, students will get a masters to be ahead of the curve and to get a good job. A masters degree is the place where students should specialize in the field of their choice. Then, they will be old enough to decide what they want to do with their life and will have had enough prior education to have a well rounded knowledge of different topics as well.

"Livinging 'Savage Inequalities'" Response

In this article not only did the fifth graders surpass the expected response to "Savage Inequalities", but they even took it a step further by acting on their response. They were given an example of a similar situation to their own and took the old cliché that they "could do whatever they put their minds to" and actually did something. What really drives it home is the adult mindset the fifth graders took. It really saddens me that the board would not take the fifth graders response. The board could not see past the age and/or race of the fifth graders when they are really the ones most affected by the injustices dealt to their society. I am glad that through the help of Mr. Schultz their voice was heard and they did make a difference in their school and community.

"Shitty first drafts" response

While reading "shitty first drives" I had a really easy time connecting to the feelings of the authors who sit down and all they want to do from the begining is write a perfect paper, one that doesnt have to be edited or revised. Of course if we did this it would save us time and energy, but the author of the article makes a good point when she says creating a first draft that doesnt necessaraly flow is a good thing because one sentence that you write could create a whole new idea that would make the paper even better. I agree with the author when she says that alot of times those things you write down in "shitty first drafts" that make an excellent paper wouldnt come up if u were trying to write close to perfect from the get go. Just being able to relax and get all your ideas down on paper is the best way to start a really good paper. Its nice to sit down and not have all that pressure on ur shoulders, feeling like you need to be perfect, becasue eventually, your paper will be perefect, if you just relax when u start! I thought that article was really well written!

(the blogging generation freaks me out)

The truth is I’ve never been truly comfortable with the notion that there are public sites containing the thoughts and ideas of anyone that has the accessibility. Free, (in all sense of the word) press is a great thing. Okay. Sure. I get lost, though, thinking of the fraction of the billions of people in the world who own blogs, and how many of them believe they are ground-breaking, completely original, and absolutely have this inherent human right to blog. From my perspective and previous experiences, there are two kinds of blogs. Mostly, there is an abundance of small blogs, mostly with few subscribers and containing few original thoughts. The latter (and lesser) are great lists and pictures and essays and stories, fictional or nonfictional, the Standout Blogs. Despite this, I still can’t shake my uneasiness towards blogging. More often than not, I come across writing that is wholly self-indulgent and vain, or filled with lols and slang, or just the opposite, with overuse of precious rhetoric and vocabulary. I’m frazzled of wondering if blogs are supposed to be all about you or about populations. I believe that a blog should have writing without any agenda to sound like anything more than who you absolutely are. There shouldn’t be predispositions about fame or popularity. Forget the feigning for attention. Leave the obnoxious wordplay and write. Even while writing this, my jumbled words sound so wrong. My opinion now sounds more decadent than anything I could ever remember reading. I’m wriggling with discomfort with every tap of the keyboard. I guess I’ll have to try to find a balance of this so vain, so modest, essay-like, conversationalist type of writing. For now, I'll stick to my fail blog.