New Trier

When talking and discussing in class today, I couldn't help but think about my academic career and what I would have done differently if GPA rewards weren't a factor. I really enjoy four level classes because I learn more about why and how things happen rather than busy work with readings and worksheets that re-copy what you just read. This would affect my decision if weighted GPA weren't a factor, but I can't say I wouldn't have an inclination to drop down a level for an easier work load because really, underneath it all, i would ask myself, "what's the point?" If my friends are going to get A's while I get B's while doing harder work and I'll have nothing to show for it, why would I bother? In the end, however, I don't think that I would change my leveling if the GPA system changed because I love history, english and french but I struggle with physics and math. My leveling is based off of interest and my ability to succeed, and I enjoy my four level classes for the extended learning and more independent regime. In math and physics, I need more help and thus an independent approach wouldn't fare too well for me. I take my four level classes because the discussion, essays and everyday work are more developed and I can form my own opinions about things and how and why they came to be. Because of this, though I enjoy being rewarded for taking the class, my course selection wouldn't change if that were to alter. I do believe the message New Trier sends kids is that if you take a higher class, you will be rewarded, and that kids motivation is through what they can get in return for their hard work. But every kid is different, and yes, if the rules were to change kids would slack, but the same amount of kids would take the class they think they'll get the most out of. Class rank was done away with, which in my opinion was a good choice because there is so much competition at our school and so many bright kids, that that should not be the center of education.

I researched the topic of just having no grades at all in a school and how that would affect kids, and I came across an article about a school named Clearwater that has no grades, no assignments, and really no responsibilities. Kids learn what they want and choose how to spend their time. There are 63 kids who attend the school, or what they call a "democratic institution", and if kids want to play video games instead of reading about the Ming Dynasty, then so be it. There were many criticisms about this method of learning, and I personally agree with one critic who says that though standardized tests and rigorous testing of knowledge is not quite the right route to take, kids cannot be simply left alone with no guidance as to what they "need to know." But what exactly is it that a student "needs to know?" Sure, there are curriculum descriptions of what kids "should" know, but wheres the line drawn that says just how necessary each course or unit is? I don't really know, but I do know that our society is heavily based on competition and pressure to  be better and that definitely detracts from the learning itself.  

oh, and heres the article

Negative Attention

The article I found online talks about how the presidential candidates are negatively discussing one another's actions to get ahead in the election. This ties back to discussions we have had about times of peril and blaming others for things that occur or will occur in the future. The article says that Obama and McCain will take negativity to a whole new level because of the current economic crisis we're in and how unstable society is. Each presidential candidate is placing a form of blame on the other, saying that they are incapable of running the United States and their policies wont work. The article states that, "The Obama campaign on monday released a documentary that tries to draw a parallel between McCain's involvement in the "Keating Five"scandal and the current economic crisis." McCain tries something similar, "raising questions about Obama's ties with Bill Ayers, a founding member of the radical Weather Underground." Both Obama and McCain are attempting to win over the independent voters by talking negatively about one another. It is a last-ditch effort to win over the hearts of those who don't identify with a party. Because of the economy right now and the recession that has plagued America, independent voters as well as both parties are looking for a strong leader to tell them that their strategy will work and, obviously, the other sides wont. People want answers to healthcare, taxes, global warming and every other issue in society and they want the peril to end. The presidential candidates want their strategy implemented, and for right now, they will go to great lengths to win and get this country out of peril the way they think will be effective.

In the presidential debate on october 15, the candidates were asked to address how negative advertising has effected their runnings and what has happened in terms of consequences to the negative words. Obama and McCain both admitted that come of their campaign advertisements have been negative, but both tried to point the finger as to which was worse and who defended who when allegations were made against one another. McCain was a bit more adimit about the fact that he refuted negative comments toward Obama and that when the situation came for Obama to do the same he did not. Either way, negative and sometimes false comments in advertisements and speeches toward each candidate has affected this election immensly and many Americans are looking to see which candidate will get the job done, even if that means factoring in the "cons" of each presidential candidate.

Realist Vs. Idealist: Our unit 3 topic

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-06/2008-06-13-voa21.cfm?CFID=52835255&CFTOKEN=63811867

In this article, McCain is documented to have said that he is a "realistic idealist"on U.S. Foreign Policy goals. Because he was a POW he thinks that national security is the most important thing. "We cannot wish the world to be a better place than it is. We have enemies for whom no attack is too cruel, and no innocent life safe and who would, if they could, strike us with the world's most terrible weapons." This realist comment, however he also says that he wants there to be positive change and hopes that can happen. Connecting to the negative comment post, I think that McCain is a realist in that he can point out flaws in the opposition and actively speak negatively. He knows wartime and being in the army, and this gives him a realistic approach of whats going on in Iraq right now. However, he could be an idealist in that he wants to keep troops in Iraq. This is idealistic because it shows that McCain has hope that if we keep troops in, we will win the war on terror. I havent fully educated myself on this presidential debate, though I have seen all the televised debates, and this statement that McCain proclaimed himself a "realistic idealist" connects very well to what our new unit is all about. It is also interesting to attempt to weigh pragmatic and idealistic points and claims that Obama and McCain make. Trying to see which is more a certain way is a good way to take in all points each is trying to make. To be president, you have to be be able to think logically and realistically while still having hope for the future, and McCain wanted to prove he was both.

Global Warming: Seeing May Cause Believing

As I was browsing through CNN.com i came across a slideshow and article involving global warming and its effects on the planet. We've all seen and heard about global warming, and it is no new news that it is a very current and debatable issue in society today, but this article caught my eye. It begins with a slideshow of pictures and quotes from a man named Gary Braasch. He talks about the impact of glacier melting especially in Antarctica and how 160,000 glaciers are currently melting. He discusses his experiences with exploring Antarctica and what adventures had come about when taking in all this information. After reading Everythings an Argument, I understood that this was pathos because it connected to me on a personal level through Braasch's experiences. The visual appeal and array of pictures dealing with pollution control and glaciers give you the "shock factor" they want you to feel so that the issue resonates with you. He also uses ethos with various types of evidence because he talks about how the climate change might not effect our lives currently , but in reality we are experiencing change with where we can grow plants, how much water we have and weather patterns. Braasch explains that the first fifteen years we knew about global warming no one did anything because there was no evidence in pictures to back it up. Logos was a factor in this news brief because there was logical evidence of the snow caps and glaciers melting. Now that people can see for themselves, it is necessary to raise awareness as much as possible to prevent this type of rapid, drastic climate change.