Hw 58

Both our guest speakers we received in class gave us insights on what's it like being a parent. Our first guest speaker told us that she has three children, a child above 20, one about 19 and another about 14. As a parent who has a long experience, she said that at first, you question everything you do and view all possible consequence before doing anything to your first born child. But as the years develop, you gain experience on how to overcome problems and the best way to deal with them. Once she had her second and third child, she no longer worried as much or questions her ability as a mother. A parent with three child, she recognizes the major life-changing choices (smoking, playing games everyday, being friends with a bad child) and only then does she interfere with the child's life. She wants her children to become what they want to be, but a parent knows best, so she guides them to a better future.
Our second guest speaker just became a father. He carries necessities the child will need such as food, a change of clothes, diapers, and more. As a father caring for his first born child, he has already looked after his daughter with care. Not allowing anyone to touch the child because of fear of infection, and keeping the child of the ground, the father pays close attention to what his child is doing. His philosophy of parenting is the same as our first guest speaker, which is that he will allowing the child certain interest but will guide the child when needed.

We are children of children of children. Our parents take care of us as best as they can from their experience from their parents. Hand-me-down methods, techniques recommended from other parents, and scientific researches all to care for our child in hopes that they will become as healthy and successful as possible. Why do parents go through the stress to care for us? Because we represent them. Our parents are trying to create something, so they mold us in their ideal of success. By caring for us, we reflect their efforts. We reflect their success, their failures, their interest, strengths, weakness and more.
From knowing this, I can see why parents go through the effort of caring for us. Parents are people themselves, and they have gone through the worse of life. They stress over the things we shouldn't do, and by helping us avoid the bad things, they hope to steer us into a good path. But I don't believe that parents should tell their kids to avoid all the bad things in life, because it just makes them that much more addicting. I think kids should experience all the "hazardous to health" things, if only once. I think that parents should introduce their child to new things, to make their child not only more experience but understanding. If a child experience more new things, they have a greater understanding on what goes on in life, and enjoy the world in all its glory and wonder. In conclusion, parents should not be over protective.

Hw 57

There is one quote I base my perspectives on and that is there is no right or wrong. With that said, there is no perfect way to care for a child. Too much attention or too little attention can alter the child's way of life but it doesn't mean that the child will suffer. If you want your child to become something specific (banker, [insert name of sport] player, model, etc) you might guide them towards that general direction, but the outcome will never be the same as your expectations. The techniques created by the listed websites under HW 57 on how to care for a child are merely techniques used by the individuals that listed them and it worked for them. But it does not mean that it will work for everybody.

I believe that a parent should do what they believe best. Everything a parent does will effect their child[ren] one way or another. I believe that the best thing the parent(s) can do is simply do their best. As long as the parent(s) do their best to care for their child[ren], they can at least have confidence and hope in the child's future. And if their child does turn out for the worse, it does not mean their way of parenting is terrible, it just means that either their parenting technique was not right for that specific child or something else in the child's life has set their future off course. If the parent just do their best, they have nothing to blame themselves for.

After reading "What attachment parenting is," I thought that whole thing was a load of garbage. There is no correct way to care for a baby. You can follow these techniques and your child can still turn out completely different than what you'd expect. There is no right way to care for a child and that means that there is no wrong way as well. People have grown up with abusive parents, ones that would leave them in the allies and one can still come out the other side fine. Even Micheal Jackson who has an abusive father, still came out famous. Sure he had some issues but what successful person doesn't? I'm not trying to imply that abusive parents are the key to success, but there is no way to predict the outcome of a child. The article also states that these techniques or "tools" are suppose to be ways to solve a problem, if any, not steps. I do believe that these techniques can be the stepping stones for new parents, but as the parents have more experience, they will soon learn that there are many other techniques that can be used.

The "Continuum Concept," is much more appealing to me. It does not imply a technique that should be practiced. It merely states an observation between a mother who cares for her child versus a child under the care of a strict schedule. The Continuum Concept explains that parents care for their child[ren] in a specific way because of generations of experience and hand-me-down techniques. This site does not specifically say that by using these techniques will a child grow up successful, but it does list a reason why you should not treat an infant like a teenager.

Hw 56

Do you enjoy spending time with your friends?

How do you feel when you spend time with them?

Does your friend benefit you in anyway? If you don't mind can you list them?

Do you feel better spending time with your friends than you do alone?


insanemembrane95:question 1 do you enjoy spending time with your friends?

anonymous: yes i do

insanemembrane95 How do you feel when you spend time with them?

anonymous: it varies with friends. Some i feel happy with and lose track of time. However, sometimes it gets boring and i just leave.

insanemembrane95 Does your friend benefit you in anyway?

anonymous: Yes, it goes both way. I help out in anyway i can and they do the same.

insanemembrane95 and if you don't mind can you list them? or an example

anonymous: well for class i didn't feel like buying a book and they lend me theirs.or wen they take a class they tell me whether the teacher is good or not they give me their old exam questions

insanemembrane95 do you feel better spending time with your friends or alone

anonymous: i like spending time alone most of the time.


question one: do you enjoy spending time with your friends?

anonymous 2: yes

insanemembrane95: how do you feel when you spend time with them?

anonymous 2: happy,stress free

insanemembrane95: does your friend benefit you in anyway?

anonymous 2: yes

insanemembrane95: can you give an example?

anonymous 2: they helped me improved my grades in school because we are always competing for the best grades

insanemembrane95: Do you feel better spending time with your friends than you do alone?

anonymous 2: yes


From these people, they pretty much gave the standard response to my questions. They have friends that benefits them, physically and mentally. They have friends they can rely on in times of great needs and they enjoy spending time with them despite their preferences. Both their ideal friends have a few things in common. First off, their friends seems to not only help during times of needs, reduce stress. While one helps gather books, the other helps with homework assignments. The qualities they both sought for in the types of friends that they want is someone who is responsible and at the same time entertaining to hang out with.

Survey Question:

If you had a choice between choosing a friend who is understanding, and someone you can relate to, or a friend who is very entertaining to hang out with, which would you choose?

Hw 55

My question is "What are our needs that we attempt to satisfy through varies relationships?" and i can specifically talking about friends, or people who wants to be friends with others, or people who just use another. One of my first theories is that they keep you from going insane. How? They keep you company. It's as easy as that. Friends are usually made by first impression, and sticking with them for a long enough time, everything they do almost appeals to you. If your friend and a stranger did the same exact thing, you would notice your friend more. They make you feel good about yourself, and you feel good around your friend. You tell them things you wouldn't normally tell strangers, and you can tell them secrets you keep from your family. A friend can judge you, and make fun of you sometimes, but they will not leave you. They keep you out of your mind and that is a terrible place to be in a long period of time. Have you ever cut off all communications for just one week? You start to think very odd stuff. It's just not healthy for you. Try for just one weekend, and you will see what I am talking about. But I digress, friends keep you out of your mind and keeps you sane with simple interactions such as talking and playing games.

Another way they satisfy your needs is that they acknowledge your existence. Friends are there to ensure you exist and that they matter to someone. that's one of the reasons why people bother their friends. They want to be noticed. That's why people on facebook friends people. Even though they don't know the person, because they are under the list of "friends" they are in a way a friend. Then it becomes a competition on the number of friends someone has. I am not trying to say that people only want friends to be noticed. But that is one of the main reasons why people have friends. Without people to keep you company, you feel alone and unnoticed. Ignored and meaningless.


This is for part of hw 55. Richie, your question is pretty simple, maybe you can expand on it, make it a little more specific. For instance, "What makes a family unique?" is a bit vague. There's too many ways to answers for it. Instead narrow it down. Maybe something like the difference between a family today and the families you see on television. And maybe consider the varies different kinds of a families out there. Is a work place a family? Is an adopted kid consider a family member? etc.

This is for hw 55. Devin, when you answer that question, you should give numbers that proves that poor neighborhood has a large impact on the obesity problem. You should also check up if it is a poor living quality that effects obesity. Maybe some rich neighborhood has the same problem. You should also research the main cause of obesity and why it only effects poor neighborhood.

New Question: What qualities do we look for in a friend to satisfy our basic needs as a human being?

Stevens, J. (1997). How to Grow a friend. Retrieved from http://www.cyberparent.com/friendship/grow2.htm

Baridhara S. (December 11, 2003). We need friends. Retrieved from http://www.bangla2000.com/mboard/vbulletin.asp?ID=3249

Stevenson, J. (n.d.). How to Find a true friend. Retrieved from http://teenadvice.about.com/od/friends/tp/qualities_of_good_friends.htm

Schneider, B. (n.d.). Bill schneider's story. Retrieved from http://www.whatadifference.samhsa.gov/stories.asp?nav=nav03&cont

HW 54

My result for the Myers Briggs test is INFP - "Questor". High capacity for caring. Emotional face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values. And i got it twice. INFP stands for Introverted, Intuitive, Feelings, and Perceiving and I guess I am. The test is structured to be as accurate as possible. Most of the questions ask if you’re one or the other, then they have one question that verifies this. With this test, it is more of how you see yourself. You are either A or B, there is no other. So this test forces you to think about yourself, and sometimes you see yourself differently, in which case, the test wouldn't be as effective.

According to my class, this test is accurate when categorizing someone. The guesses that were made in the classroom were mostly correct, and many people believe that the test does indeed depict what kind of person you are. But the test only tells you how you act sometimes. Does the test work on people who are mentally unstable? This test might be accurate towards people without mental issues but it leaves the people who are out. So the accuracy of this test only works on people who are mentally stable, but how do you know if the people you are familiar with are mentally healthy?

Hw 53

Some of these questions were rather easy and I could answer without any problems and because no one was looking over my shoulder, I didn't feel like I have to lie as much. Though some of the other questions I had to think about. I had to really dig deep into my head and figure out which answer is most truthful. Those kinds of questions I felt like most people would have trouble with. And some of the questions I honestly can't remember well and even if I'm answering from my perspective, I could be wrong. Because of my awful memory, I can’t remember the most honest answers to some of the questions so some of my answers could be lies. That’s the difficult part of this assignment, whether you really think you tell the truth or not.

Then there are questions that make you really think about your relationships such as, “are there any scapegoats within your family?” And the following, “are you a scapegoat,” or vice versa. This makes you think about your family. I think most people wouldn't want to think about it and just answer no. But sometimes we lie to ourselves thinking that our family is perfect, because if we answer truthfully, we would feel guilty. Answering questions like these are hard to determine the answer because you are conflicting with the love for your family and what you believe to be truw.

A lot of people in my class notice a contradiction between what is answered and what is being said in the hallways. For instance, most people say that they don't care for their parents but when looking at the results, a majority of the people who participated in the survey said they care for their parents. This shows that either the people who participated are lying or what is said in the halls are false. I noticed that the answers they gave on the multiple choices contradict with the answers they gave for the short answers. The choices that were filled in on the multiple questions make it sound like they have a perfect family. A majority of the votes were for things like "your family values you," or "your guardians make an effort to get to know you". But on the short answer, it ask you to write down what the parents think of you, people wrote things like "lazy son," or "a good daughter," and i wonder if they even know what their parents think of them. (for some reason the short responses were not on the link provided. The short answers I picked up were from the print-out sheet in class.)

One pattern I noticed is that all answers chosen seem too fake. Of the fifty-two participants, only one or two people chose the opposite of the majority. Most of answers make these people seem to have a very normal life and I don't believe that. I think that most of the participants are lying knowingly or lying to themselves. Then again maybe it's just me, and that these people do have a happy life, but judging from what the people said about what their parents think of them, I can't help but wonder.

I read the Department of health and mental hygiene...etc. and this might validate the relationship/love part of the class survey. It shows about 50% of the people who took the test has been sexually active and some don't use protection. The article was accurate surprisingly and also caught on about how a majority of them don't use protection. The article was also very specific on where the problem is taking place. They gave a specific percentage of these pregnancy incidents in varies places and race. They have either done an exceptionally well research or they are exaggerating.

The article really surprised me a bit with the amount of work they have shown in their research. They couldn't have gotten this information just by asking people because that would be awkward and weird. T he sources they have I don't have access to but this does help me think up survey questions such as asking the participant a little about themselves such as age and maybe area they live in(not specific streets but like rural, or urban, etc.). Of course because of how anonymous the survey will be to, being precious is going to be difficult so the questions about the person will have to be vague but informal.

Hw 52

There is too many ways to tackle the theories of why we do things and how things motivate us. Why we want love, power, family, friends, etc. But I do believe there is one thing that tops all of these, and it is the choices we make. A person can get hit by both their parents, have no friends, and live in a poor condition and can turn out fine on the other side and vise-versa. It all comes down to what we choose to do and it is the choices we make that create us as a person. We can choose what motivates us and how it motivates us.

Some of us choose to have friends because we don't want to be forgotten. For those who choose to have friends are motivated by the fear of being forgotten. If we can't be remembered by millions of people, we choose to be remembered by as many people as possible. This is the same with family and why we stick to them. We all want to be important, we all want attention because it is human nature. We are born in this world alone, and we are afraid to die alone. You can see this especially in facebook. The more friends you have the more people want to become your friend, even if they don't know you. And when having friends isn't enough, they try talking to you in hopes that you acknowledge their existence. Of course some people crave for attention and go a little too far. It becomes their life goal so they do things such as becoming a hooker, stripper, murderer, an authority of the law, suicidal people, daredevil, etc.

The roles we play are generally for attention but it can also give us power. Roles include ethics, culture, religion (if you have one), a job (if you have one) and your choices. Many other factors can empower or weaken your role but these are the largest of them. Ethics means nothing without culture to a person. You can be born in the west and have a culture similar to the east. Ethnic is only on the list because it influences the way people see you which will result to how they treat you. Culture and religion can affect a person depending on how much a person is loyal to them. What you do and what you say can be greatly influenced by your culture and religion. You do what you believe to be the way of life and you abide to them.

Roles in family are different than the roles we play outside. The roles you play usually are assigned to you at first such as the role of a good child, the cute child, etc. But as time goes on you develop your own persona and your own roles because you want to be unique not a copy-cat. By playing a different role you gain your own types of attention. Some play the role of bad child because of the attention they want. Some play the responsible one to get good attention from their parents. The list of roles can go on and on. Even adults continue to play these roles to gain attention from other people such as their love parent, siblings, and relatives. We continue these roles because we have no option but to play these roles. We participate in them even before we are born, when parents are expecting a healthy perfect child.

A job is something funny. It can change a person from their culture and religion. When you grow up, you are usually surrounded by people who teach you of their culture and religion. You right away feel accepted because these people are teaching you of their ways. A job, similar to school, introduces you to new people with new culture and religion, forcing you to see a whole new way of living. You can be a bully at first and if you hang out with pacifist, the bully will convert to a pacifist. If the bully hangs out with other bullies, he might find new ways of bullying people. A job and school provides a new environment that can change or empower someone’s role.

Choice is the most important factor. What you choose and what your choices are will affect you whether you accept or neglect things such as religion, culture, people with different interest, and so many others. Even the list of choices you provide for yourself can effect who you are. We even choose to accept or neglect things we don't notice such as advertisement, propaganda, and subliminal messages. You can break down choices to other factors such as your feelings, urges, and other human emotions. Your choices toward these things will change you as a person or these things will change the choices you provide for yourself. One way or another you will come out a differently after you choose.

All of these will effect what kind of life you want. We do things to achieve something in life. This life achievement can be our motivation, our choice, our guide, and/or our life. All of these factors in previous paragraphs can change or be change depending on your life goal. And honestly there are no good or bad life goals. It can be something similar to Charles Manson, or Bill Gates. Your life goal shouldn't have to revolve around the people close to you or people in need. Your life is your life, no one else. You can choose to be motivated positively or negatively by random people, live life or hide, etc. So many factors can change your entire perspective on how and why to live life.

Hw 51

There are a lot of people we could blame for the students limited thought process as Freire and Delpit have described. For instance, as most people do, we can blame teachers for not taking a stand against this “depositor and depository” relationship (reference to Freires' article). We can blame anyone involved with school such as parents, adults, other students, and so on. Hell, we can blame our government because they also control our school. We can blame anyone but it won’t help. Instead we should try and change school for the better. We’re the ones who have to live through school for a long period of time, so why not have the students decide what to change? I don’t know who or what grades should have that kind of authority, maybe have a representative. And no I don’t believe class president really represents anything. We should be able to change the things we have problems with. We should decrease the time we spend going to school, while creating a more meaningful curriculum to help us create a more meaningful life and change people’s view on students as objects.

First of all, if there is one thing I would keep the same, which is elementary school. Elementary school introduced us to new and exciting things while giving us the experience we need. They teach the basics of the most important subjects: math, science, english, and history. When we first arrive, they introduce us to new things we ought to learn, things we learn not just in classes but in the hallways as well. We are introduced to new people, and we develop new kinds of relationships with them that will last throughout the school years. Elementary school house many kinds of people with different cultures, and attitudes for us to meet. Even the friends we choose can bring us insights on what kind of future they might have and what kind of future you might have. With an environment that you become familiar to, it gives you more energy and keeps you interested in school. I would also have to say that elementary school was the best years of my school experiences because everything was new to me, and because of my curiosity, I never really got bored.

Some people don’t view children as people, but merely things that can be used to alter the future. From child labor, to T.V. ads or to when people say “they are fighting for our children,” people use children because it propose the best defense. Children are supposed to be the future of countries, they will live long enough to see their elders die. Some people use them for harmless ads, such as diaper commercials and movies, but that isn’t so bad because the child is earning some money for their family. Others have found better use of children. Because of their age, people assume that the child is inexperience with logical thinking. People use this advantage for their own benefits. An article written by dailymail.co.uk talks about children being used as guinea pigs to test the new wireless computer network that can potentially cause “loss of concentration, fatigue, reduced memory and headaches. There are also claims that it could increase the long-term risk of cancer.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-472357/Children-used-guinea-pigs-mass-Wi-Fi-experiment-warn-teachers.html) With such fatal symptoms, they still manage to install these devices in over 15,000 schools. The future adults of UK are going to become cancer patients because of this company’s selfish reason to test out a device that is already too hazardous to begin with. They took no sympathy for the possible outcome of the children, as though they treated children like animals in a laboratory. Once we are able to change the view of some adults, and convince them that children are no test subjects and should not be taken advantage of then maybe we can be treated more like the human beings we are.

Teachers in school should be familiar and use the technique problem-posing to create a friendlier environment. In some school today, students and teachers have a weak relationship. The teacher acts like an authority figure, what they say goes without question. The students would only be bored and wonder how the lesson is at all important in their life. Without a reason, lessons become meaningless and time is wasted in class because the students won’t listen to what the teacher has to say. The solution is using the problem-posing technique which is basically “The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. Here, no one teaches another, nor is anyone self-taught.” (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/subject/education/freire/pedagogy/ch02.htm) Teachers can only live one life, and only have so much perspective. By getting to know students, they can increase their thoughts as well as teaching students to expand theirs. Problem-posing is a way where no one person is teaching but where even the students have something to say. This way everyone is learning and experiencing new things which is what school should be.

Next is to shorten the school years or change it for better use. Back during the 1700’s, the average life span was around 35. Franklin went to school for two years because his parents didn’t have enough money, and went on teaching himself. He spent about six percent of his life in school. The average person nowadays spend about twenty two years in school when you include elementary, junior high, high school and a four year college program, the average life span is around 75. We spent about thirty percent of our life in school sitting around and having teachers tell us things we can’t really be sure of. I think we should cut high school off and move right on to college. Benjamin had an idea of what he wanted to do at the age of fifteen. We need to forget high school and move on to college where we choose majors for our future careers because going to high school for four years seems like an extra. Yes it teaches us more complex materials on subjects but nothing college can’t already teach. This will increase the amount of money earn especially when you have four years of your life back, it will also help us move on with our lives and do the things we want to do. Because time in college is short enough you can add mandatory classes such as financial aid classes and any other things that jobs can’t teach you. We would gain approximately eight percent of our life back.

There are of course drawbacks to these types of changes and I do feel like most people would prefer school as it is now because it already shows progress. School becomes a competition for most students. There is the most intelligent student, the most athletic student, and then there is the worse student. Most students would aim for recognition, such as becoming athletic, or learning everything there is to know about a hot topic. That’s the upside to the school system today, they make us fight for attention. With competition there is progress, and medals are just for recognition. The downside to this system is that the worse of students don’t get enough attention. They start to slack off in their school works and eventually stop coming to school. This could be because of the pressure the school gives off towards people who are a bit slow, or maybe because they don’t see the point in these competitions. There are many students today who don’t go to school for similar reasons. I can’t say that my ideas are any better than the school system we have today, but there is definitely something we need to change about school.

HW 51

There are a lot of people we could blame for the students limited thought process as Freire and Delpit have described. For instance, as most people do, we can blame teachers for not taking a stand against this “depositor and depository’s” relationship (reference to Freires' article). We can blame anyone involved with school such as parents, adults, other students, and so on. Hell, we can blame our government seeing as they are involved in many things. We can blame anyone but it won’t help. Instead we should try and change school for the better. We’re the ones who have to live through school for a long period of time, so why not have the students decide what to change? I don’t know who or what grades should have that kind of authority, maybe have a representative. And no I don’t believe class president really represents anything. We should be able to change the things we have problems with. One thing is too shorten our time in school. We should also create a more meaningful curriculum to help us create a more meaningful life and change people’s view on students as objects.

First off, if there is one thing I will keep the same, it is elementary school. They teach the basics of the most important subject, math, science, english, and history. When we first arrive, they introduce us to new things we ought to learn, not just in class but outside of class. We are introduced to new people, and we develop new kinds of relationships that will last throughout the school year. Elementary school house many kinds of people with different culture, attitude, etc. for us to meet. Even the friends we choose to have can bring us insights on what kind of future they might have and what kind of future you will have. With an environment that you become familiar to, it gives you more energy and keeps you interested in school. I also have to say that elementary school was the best years of my school experience because everything was new to me, and because of my curiosity, I never really got bored. Elementary school introduced us to new and exciting things while giving us the experience we need.

Some people don’t view children as people, but merely things that can be used to alter the future. From child labor, to T.V. ads or when people say “they are fighting for our children,” people use children because it purposes the best defense. Children are supposed to be the future of countries because they will be long enough to see their elders die. Some people use them for harmless ads, such as diaper commercials and movies, and that isn’t so bad because the child is earning some money for the family. Others have found better use of children. Because of their age, people will assume that the child is inexperience with logical thinking. People use this to their advantage for their own benefits. An article written by dailymail.co.uk talks about children being used as guinea pigs to test the new wireless computer network that can potentially cause “loss of concentration, fatigue, reduced memory and headaches. There are also claims that it could increase the long-term risk of cancer.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-472357/Children-used-guinea-pigs-mass-Wi-Fi-experiment-warn-teachers.html) With such fatal symptoms, they still manage to install these devices in over 15,000 schools. The future adults of UK are going to become cancer patients because of this company’s selfish reason to test out a device that is already too hazardous to begin with. They took no sympathy for the possible outcome of the children, as though they treated children like animals in a laboratory. Once we are able to change the view of some adults, and convince them that children are no test subjects and should not be taken advantage of then maybe we can be treated more like the human we are.

Teachers in school should be familiar and use the technique problem-posing to create a friendlier environment. In some school today, students and teachers have a weak relationship. The teacher acts like an authority figure, what they say goes without question. This would not only bore the students, but they can’t help but wonder how the lesson is at all important in their life. Without a reason, lessons become meaningless and time is wasted in class because the students won’t listen to what the teacher has to say. The solution is using the problem-posing technique which is basically “The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. Here, no one teaches another, nor is anyone self-taught.” (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/subject/education/freire/pedagogy/ch02.htm) Teachers can only live one life, and only have so much perspective. By getting to know students, they can increase their thoughts as well as teach students to expand their thinking as well. Problem-posing is a way where no one person is teaching but where even the students have something to say. This way everyone is learning and experiencing new things which is what school ought to be.

Next is to shorten our time or change it for better use. Back during the 1700’s, the average life span was around 35. Franklin went to school for two years because his parents didn’t have enough money, and went on teaching himself. He spent about six percent of his life to school. The average person nowadays spend about twenty two years in school when you include elementary, high school and a four year college program and the average life span is around 75. We spent about thirty percent of our life in school sitting around and having teachers tell us things we can’t really be sure of. I think we should cut high school off and move right on to college. Benjamin had an idea of what he wanted to do at the age of fifteen. We need to forget high school and move right on to college where we choose majors for our future careers because going to high school for four years seems like a waste. Yes it teaches us more complex materials on subjects but nothing college can’t already teach. This will the amount of money earn especially when you have four years of your life back, this will also help us move on with our lives and do the things we want to do. And because time in college is short enough you can add mandatory classes such as financial aid classes and any other things that jobs can’t teach you. We would gain approximately eight percent of our life back.

There are of course drawbacks to these types of changes and I do feel like most people would prefer school as it is now because it already shows progress. We have more and more people educated even if some of them can expand their thinking at all. Some people say that schools are becoming worse and worse over the past few years, but when you look at it, the population has increased dramatically over the past few years. Of course we’re going to see more people failing but we will also see more people succeeding. There will always be someone on the bottom of our society, and there is always someone on top. Maybe it is a lot easier to have feelings such as sympathy for a guy living on the street which is why we noticed them more. I think, despite the poor class population, school has gotten better. We have more people attending high school, something Benjamin couldn’t get into. We have more and more people attending colleges and hopefully the majority of them becoming what they want to be. And even then, we have people succeeding even without a college degree or a high school graduation. I bet there are more people with a job today than any time in history and anywhere else on earth. So to me, school hasn’t gotten worse or better, just changed.

Hw 50

My first article I read was by Gatto, entitled Against School. He said that school originated from Prussia, and it was meant to create common thinkers that can be able to do basic things and be used without their knowledge. To eradicate independent thoughts so we must rely on others to tell us what we want to know, to remove the logical thinking and the thought process and only provide answers to questions. Basically to make slaves, people who know their place, act their place, and think their place, all this because of profit. According to the author, we are profits to the rich men, we keep the society running and we keep it going. In war, those who control the intelligence control the battle. In school, the profiteers allow students to learn just enough to run our daily course, to keep ourselves alive and healthy as long as possible so they can milk us for every pennies worth. They pay millions to keep school running, and we grow up to become consumers who spend billions of dollars on things we do not need, things that will not benefit us but only comfort us. We buy things to create a fantasy that where we are important, and with a comfy blanket over us, a nice plasma screen TV in front of us, next to paintings and portraits of random people and places, how could we not drown ourselves in this world?
I already believed in most of the things that Gatto has written before I read the document. We are taught by people who are educated enough to teach children just enough or maybe even less. We are spewing crap to generations after generations. I think that if most people read this article, they would think its bullshit, and that school is mainly used to help people get a life. But our lives are already designed for us, with transcript and permanent records, and social security numbers, we are branded cows ready to be turned into food. Children are ripe for the picking. One way or another we can't go back to the way things were with Ben Franklin or any of the others teaching themselves or becoming an apprentice. There is no way to go back especially with the disturbing ideas and events the news and the internet tells us. No one trusts each other anymore and that we are all looking at each other as greedy people. We are going to have to live with this school system but it doesn't mean we can’t change it to benefit the future rather than creating mindless drones. If people, more specifically parents want a resolution, than they should be one of the main contributors of school. They should be able to put changes they believe will benefit students. Actually, thinking about it now, that might be as bad as letting the profiteers handle school work. For one thing, they don’t care for religion or ethics so much, so long as they make money. Parents, on the other hand, are a large group of people, with different ideas, opinions, and beliefs. If Gatto is right, that school freezes the mind of students so that no matter how old they become, their mind still maintains the mind of children, then parents who went to school will still act like children and school will probably be no different. One way or another, if you look at it, students will learn something. But should parents or profiteers run school education, I don’t know.



In Freire's article Pedagogy of the Oppressed, second chapter, talks about the extent of our knowledge when taught in school. In most public schools we are taught one way of thinking and repeatedly study this one way of thinking until we can regurgitate it exactly. He says that it is useless information if we know that four times four is sixteen but we don’t know how to get the answer. If there is no lesson on how to solve problems, we are limited to the questions and the answers. In other words, there is no how you get the answers, just what is the answer. Freire explained two typed of ways to teach: one is banking where students are depositories while the teachers are depositors. Then there is post-problem method which is to get more involved with students. Banking is when a teacher treats students like an incomplete textbook and the teacher has to fill out all the missing pages with random facts. They cannot connect with students or explain how this related to their lives, but if they memorized the random facts, they will become successful. Post-problems take a problem and try to relate to it. They explain why it is important and how it connects to the students’ life. Treating student more than mere objects can get students more interested, more in tune with the lesson and also ask question which will increase their thinking ability and knowledge. Again, banking turns you into a person with random facts, and post-problem encourages deep thinking and the importance of a subject.
I think our school acts like a post-problem school. Even though I don't engage in conversations with teachers, from my perspective, the students and the teachers know each other unusually more than they have to. With this kind of relationship, teachers are able to gain the respect of a student while increasing the interest the students have on a subject. This relationship is also better because it helps us become human. What separates us from a robot is that we can produce our own ideas and thoughts. What also separates us from robots is our communication. As humans we need to communicate to one another, it helps us from getting bored and going crazy. It helps keep lessons more interesting if students can engage in a conversation and ask questions. And it teaches us to be more like adults. For instances, you tell a kid something, chances are they are going to accept it without asking questions. As an adult or acting like one, you wouldn't just accept it without knowing how someone concluded to this kind of thought. An adult would want to know the thought process, why and how are important. Post-problems separate us from robots that banking hopes to create.



In Delpit's Interview with N. Stanley, is a Q&A about methods of teaching in school. She does not believe that tests will expose the brilliance a student can possess if tests only expose the students weakness. Teacher must go out and learn about the student from their community or from other students. She also tested out that students can learn much faster if they learned their official or main language first before learning a foreign language. By learning their language first, they can learn much faster because they are able to communicate with the people around them in their neighborhood or outside of school. The best method to teach is with art, whether it'd be poem, drawing, dancing, etc. This will take the bore out of learning and if you are able to write a poem about it, gets students more active and motivated to learn about the subject. Art also helps people feel like they belong to a sort of "club". Just like the movie Dead Poet Society, people will feel like they belong and somehow will feel encourage to participate in lessons or even understand lessons faster than those who don't use art as a method. Last thing she said was that every student has weaknesses and strengths. If teachers knew the strengths of their students, they should work with their strengths so teaching won't become a hassle. But there are some opportunities to turn a student’s weakness into a strength.
Delpit presents a lot of solutions for teachers in need of help. Most of her methods requires a lot of enthusiasm some teachers don't have such as asking around the students’ neighborhood to uncover the students strengths and weaknesses. Some of them involve parents such as teaching their child their native language first. Most of her methods take time that I think no one really cares for. If, I think it was Gatto, was right that teachers are bored of the subject they teach, and are told that they are unable to approach their students as human beings, then there is no way that they can use these methods. And the students being depositories for these lessons without an explanation cannot use art as a way of learning because they have not been taught creative. But in school where students are treated as humans, these lessons would be great. In fact, teachers might not even have to go to their students’ neighborhood to find out their strengths, just merely asking them would be sufficed. And the best part is, if teachers and students are able to get along, teacher can teach their lessons in an artsy way if it helps to learn better.



I only remember briefly what teachers we have interviewed in our class have said. Mr. Fanning never made it to our class. I don't remember Andy saying anything about his teaching experience or even high school experience. For Ms. D, I believe I remembered her speaking something about gender as a problem in her teaching years. Not really sure, but she was, I think, pressured for being a woman teacher which is why she left that school with a name I can't recall. Mr. Manly was just a few days ago, and he said that in his high school, the English teachers’ lessons were boring so he wasn't into English until college. Then when he became a teacher, he first taught in Math and Science of something as a grammar teacher for seventh grade, I think, and was told not to engage in conversation with students in any way other than what is needed to be explained from the textbook that was assigned for the curriculum. In his experience the students were not so much motivated to learn as appose to getting good grades. He believes that school to be the "antiSOF".
I have a slight memory problem but I do remember that they, or at least Ms. D and Mr. Manly, have problems with their previous schools that they taught in. Whether it was a bunch of sexist teachers, or teaching a zombie classroom, they all enjoy teaching in SOF. I can't be sure whether they are telling the truth or not, but I will have to take their word for it that SOF is not the worse school of all, but in fact offers new ways of teaching most schools don't have. But one thing I am sure of even at an early age when I use to attend private school, it was a lot better to have a teacher who is more enthusiastic about their curriculum, expresses themselves and put themselves in the lesson with stories about their life (even if they are lying) than a teacher who only teaches and never engage in conversation with the class only when talking about the curriculum.

HW 49A

Our class film so far has been about an alcoholic teacher who is sick of school. Reasons are unclear or maybe there's too much reasons, but judging from the dialogues, the teacher is sick of everything about school, the curriculums, the students, and even his own lesson. It seems like his girlfriend had something to do with his circumstance, since the first scene is him moping with a picture of her in his cellphone but some of us haven't seen it yet. The scene after takes place where the teacher is sleeping and is woken by one student who is worried about his condition. Eventually he got up and taught the class that life isn't so simple. Curses a bunch of students and then leaves.

The first scene takes place in a dark room, with the only source of light could be the computer screen and the cellular phone. If you picture that, because the light from the phone contradicts with the dark in the room, whatever the teacher is looking at on the phone is important, which is his girlfriend. Because he is all alone in an empty room with only a picture of his girlfriend, something must have happen to his otherwise he could've just called her. So this makes him a man who has lost something he is not ready to lose and tries to drown the pain by drinking. The next day, the class arrives in the room with the teachers head on the table which tells me he has been drinking all night and has not left the building. This also tells me he did not want to go, whether he has one or not. The way he approach the student in the class he also acted like he blamed them for his state of being. He attacks the students strength (i.e. the smart students), and weakness (i.e. the rebels) while disregarding his intentional lesson. Then leaving the class with a "fuck you" attitude, leaving the students confused and eventually resuming their chat.

This would be the only film, compared to all the teacher/savior films we have watched that didn't end predictably. For instance, the mood of the other films in the beginning is a carnival, where the students go crazy and have a party (though some of the films don't exaggerate that far). Each student living like they are going to die tonight so they ignore the lessons and chat like everything happened that day. And when the teacher tried to do their job, they all fail to grab their attention. In our class film, the first scene was a drunk teacher who misses his girlfriend. The scene with the class starts out with the students wondering why the teacher is drunk. our film completely contradicts the other films right from the start with a drunk teacher. At the very beginning you don't see him as a savior but a saboteur. But we did do something the other films have done with is to show the misery the teachers endure. Our film didn't have much of an plot where the problem was resolved in the end. In other films, no matter how bad the students got, the teachers never caved in and gave up. Even in Hamlet 2 where the teacher was a hopeless slob and maybe mentally crazy, he never gave up. Even when the the veteran teacher who came back from a war, where people shot at her, complained that her students are terrible, she never gave up. In all these films the teacher kept going. Other film is the opposite. In my opinion, our film is what happens to a teacher who works for too long, trying hard each year to get their students attention and determination to learn lessons that may or may not help them in the future. I believe that our film is the end all to the teachers of the savior/teacher films.

I don't get why people have to go to school to become successful, many people have done it. I guess because more people have become successful with education, so they immediately assume that the more people who attend school, the more people will do well in life. I think this idea is ridiculous in every way possible but I guess it can't be helped. People learn more in school definitely, I won't say important things (except the basics) but definitely something. Why there are so many teacher/savior films is because of the amount of students dropping out, or not paying attention. Maybe this is a generation of ignorance and that more and more students believe they can achieve without schooling. Parents get mad and blames the school for their child's hatred for school. They all cried out for a teacher who goes the extra mile to hep students learn and make them interested in learning. Maybe thats why there is so many teacher/savior films that predictably end the same way because it would be too realistic if it ended the other way. I mean how many teacher have we had that acted like a savior and made us interested in learning more? I honestly couldn't tell if I ever met one. Besides movies are suppose to be fantasy, that's why they are movies and not documentaries.

HW 48

Something about something: Teacher goes to a school and find that their classroom is filled with high school students who has phobias. The teacher finds that they all have a common phobia, paper cuts. The though of being cut by the edge of a paper made them so afraid that they cannot read books or even own a notebook. The simple solution of using computers was negated by a simple problem, the school didn't have enough fund to buy each student a laptop. The challenge the teacher faces is teaching the students without any materials and discovers that the teacher will have to resort to need techniques and ways to teach the class. There are several students that are worth mentioning. One student, A, wants to learn but is unable to. A tries to go to the library to use the computer but doesn't trust the books stacked behind them. A really wants to learn and hopes that the teach will be able to help them overcome their fear or at least try. Student B is having trouble at home. B goes to a home where the parents yell at each other all the time. B overheard one of their conversation about getting a divorce and continues to argue up to this day who should take care of B. They want B to decide who should take care of B but because they both love B, they started to bribe B. This only causes emotion out burst, and hatred for the parents. Student C, has no problem with the phobia, even though C has it worse. C is not only afraid of paper, but any form of tree; wood, paper, etc.
With no way of learning, C goes through the motion of school, proud of his phobia and uses it as an excuse whenever someone questions his intelligence.

First thing the teacher does is help the students get over their fear of papers. He gets the book Perks of Being a Wallflower (only because its the only book I know with laminated sheets and somewhat educational). As soon as the students got use to the laminated paper, except for C, they began to gain hopes for their education and future. Soon enough the teach knew what to do, and so began laminated pages of a textbook for every subject (since he's the only one teaching them) so he may bring them in class for like a show and tell. But the teacher still had nothing to show because the teacher had nothing to show to the principal if the students don't have any homework and the students can't do homework because they are afraid of paper.

One day Teacher (i don't know what gender the teachers going to be so i can't really give the teacher a name, so I'm just going to cal him "Teacher")was carrying books he brought from a bookstore, and bumps into someone when turning the corner. The books fell no top of both of them. When the teacher got up, he realize that the books fell on top of one of his student, C. C did not scream nor shout but merely pushed the books off of him. Teacher was confused and decided to test C's "phobia" by tossing a pencil he had in his chest pocket at him. C picked it up, not realizing that he had bumped into his teacher. They had a whole talk and apparently C faked his phobia so he can get an excuse to not do homework. The teacher made a long speech about life and doing good in school etc. and C got mad and left. Over the course of the week, Teacher had a plan to get rid of the students phobia but he needed C's help. (I don't know how Teacher would get C on his side, maybe telling on his parents and showing him what C can accomplish through singing and dancing. I don't know, so I'm going to skip to the part where Teacher did get C on his side.)

Teachers plan is this: with C on Teacher's side, Teacher can work on C's "phobia" while also transforming the worse of students into a better student. Once Teacher gets rid of C's phobia (not all at once, maybe in a few days), by giving him a pencil to hold, making him read a book made of paper, the students got use to the idea of paper and soon some of the students lost their fear. Teacher began transforming the students one by one.

(If you want to make it longer, you can add the idea of the teacher going into B's house and trying to get his parents to love B. When that doesn't work, Teacher invites mother and father to join B's mother and father in order to create a resolution that will help both B and his parents situation. Once that's all cleared up, B was more attentive in school. The final obstacle the teacher has to face is during their first parent teacher conference, C's parents told everyone that their child does not have a phobia whatsoever. Then C revealed that the teacher was lying to the students etc. The students felt betrayed and join together to hate the teacher. Of course eventually the teacher earns their trust by showing them how much they have accomplished after they got over their phobias and accept the Teacher back.)

If you got a better conclusion be my guest.

HW 46

I read a book about the biggest institution in America, the military. The book is called Jarhead, and if your talking institution wise, the military wanted well trained soldiers that doesn't mind being kept in the dark. For instance the soldiers in the book knew how to calculate the distance a bullet can travel, and work together, but without a reason other than fighting for America. If we look at how the military works, discipline is one of the main skills they want soldiers to learn. After discipline, they teach other skills along with loyalty, and how to act. But in the end, they don't just teach you how to act like a soldier but a decent civilian.
My topic was about how schools want to form their children into civilized adults. This is no different then what the military is trying to accomplish. For instant, they both teach about respect, and disipline while educating students the skills they need to "achieve" in life. Look at the "go-army" commercials, they make people believe that they teach people skills and knowlegde to help them better themselves, nothing more than what school is already doing. Every institution is trying to teach their people their way in acting in life, military and schools happen to be the same. They teach you the "proper" ways to act like a civilian and have people believe that thei progras can change people.
In Jarhead the soldiers in the beginning act like children. They are immature, play harsh pranks while showing they cannot complete a simple command. Though once they are in a battle, they all act as a unit, trying to keep each other alive while remaining calm in the most dangerous of task. The military has taught them the basic needs to survive in a fight, how to act in a fight, what to do and how to do it. Same goes for schools. In the beginning were suppose to arrive at this institution all gullible and stupid, and come out intellectual people with a college degree, dress well, eat well, and maintain a health body day after day. That is the goal of both these institution and their answer to maintain a number of health mentally stabled individuals

HW 47

Ideas for the film:

1. You have a person who is down on their luck and fake their resume to get a job as a teacher. Then throughout the year the students somehow helped the teacher get back on their feet and on with their life.

2. You can do the usual teacher teaching immanent rather then transcendent.

3. An add-on to the last one, you cane have two teachers in a competition to see whether immanent or transcendent is better.

4. You can have a teacher not only teaching but going through extreme lengths to help their students with their home problems or any other problems.

5. I really liked that movie with the dead poet society, where the teacher doesn't only teach but teach with enthusiasm and pride. I thought this is the most interesting because the teacher manages to make everything alright and fill the classroom with excitement and mystery. This kind of film would be interesting to make rather than the usual teacher saving student thing.

Hw 45

In most movies that we recently watched, all the teachers started out teaching like E.D. Hirsch, who teaches transcendent, or a step by step lesson. Eventually the teachers end up teaching like Ted Sizer, who teaches immanent, which basically is work with what works. I feel as though E.D. Hirsch is the kind of teacher society wants. People believe that the more someone knows about something, the smarter they are. Filling a person with information seems like something our parents what as well. As long as kids come home with some new knowledge, it keeps the parents happy that their child learns something even if it is not necessary. Though this technique is good because it separates the fast learners from the slow learners. Not because one class is dumb, this will help the teachers come up with new techniques that will maybe improve students to learn. Life is a competition and this technique is too.

Ted Sizer influenced our school to teach the habits of mind. Unlike Hirsch, people will learn new ways of looking at things, develop new points of view and come up with their own inferences. I like this technique better then Hirsch because with the other technique, they teach you what is right and wrong and with history you can never be sure if the textbooks are accurate. Sizer teaches us to question things, to teach us that nothing is absolutely true if we can question it. The thing about these two techniques is that Hirsch doesn't feel confident when using his techniques with elementary students and Sizer does feel comfortable with high school students. Yet most people in our school, I bet, were taught Hirsch's technique in elementary and Sizer's technique in high school and we turned out fine. Frankly, I feel like Sizer's technique is more important when living your life but Hirsch's technique is more important when getting a job or sorts.

hw 44

I have watched the Obama school speech, and read two of the articles about school and although each one talks about the "war" or most important battle is school, they each brought up their own points of view. For instance, Obama said we must try and try if we want to accomplish something because the best things in life aren't free. He also said that if we drop out of school that goes against America. Also no one who drops out of school lands on a good job. I would disagree with most of the things he said. Other than the best things in life, or at least some, kids dropping out of school has been a part of the U.S.A. and isn't freedom what this country was suppose to stand for? And the other thing, there are a lot of people that dropped out of high school and still land on a good job, even better than most. One of the articles i read was about liberal arts and how it can expand out thinking. Yes an open minded person is caring, but the article seem to suggest that it is the most important of classes. They seem to believe that it is so important, years from now important people got where they are because of it. I do think that a class that increases your thinking is important but isn't really the most important of classes. Lastly, the second article i read was about school needing two system, one employee and one entrepreneur. An entrepreneur is basically a person who creates his own company, therefore more jobs are available and more people will be employed. Although this is a nice idea, i do not think it is a solution to the number of employees. First off, there are a lot of unemployed person not because of the limited job offers. Second this won't solve our problem but merely delay it and in the end making it worse. Like shoving trash into an already filled trash can. If there are numerous companies, there is going to be competition. Competition means winners and losers. Losing team will lose company and everyone working for it will lose their job. none of these solution present is even doable or a solution at all. All these people believe that school is the most important because of how gullible children are. That's why we are important, because we're new.

Although none of these are solutions to school or even the future, i do believe that school does offer things to children. For instance, with the amount of people around, they teach you what other people can be like, other then your parents or neighbors. They give you a glimpse of what life as a normal adult would look like; who to talk to, who is your superior, your superior's superior, etc. work life. The best thing they can do for students, and i believe this myself, if introduce you to new things. Subjects, ideas, authors, techniques, points of view, and many other things. Although the school itself might not teach you things, but that's why school is made up of different minds, so students can share thoughts with each other. That, i believe is the purpose of school, to introduce you to new things, and its your choice whether to take an interest towards it, or ignore it.

Hw 41

One of the questions i asked my interviewees is what kind of classes should be added to school. The interviewee said there should be a class that helps financially. Coincidentally i found another person who thought of that as well. Peter Anderson posted on the web about how everyone has no idea how to maintain the amount of money they have and some adults today don't fully understand how to balance their checks, budget, credit card etc. Anderson posted this: http://www.biblemoneymatters.com/2009/06/should-there-be-mandatory-personal-finance-classes-in-high-schools.html.

In this website a question was posted "What subject not currently studied in school should be included in the curriculum?" This is not a forum however but where people post up essays. Ranging from adding classes such as politics, and how to improve school, the nine people that posted an essay have something to say about the question and schools. They also back up these ideas with personal interaction. The top post, J. Russ, wrote that the lessons learned in school are more important than we think. http://www.helium.com/knowledge/97943-what-subject-not-currently-studied-in-school-should-be-included-in-the

One of my other questions were ways to improve school. A website with a list of ways to improve school by the Texas School Performance Reviews. In nine years, the schools in Texas have made over 3,500 different ways to improve their school. They made a top ten list posted on the web and definitions of how to do this. http://www.window.state.tx.us/tpr/tspr/t9.html
This website really only talks about how to save money and how to make a school last long. I found it interesting that there is no talk about educations but rather the school itself. The "improvements" are more about how to save taxpayers money,

Same question before but with a different website. This is more of an enthusiastic approach on how to improve school. Not just improving school but improving how lessons should be taught, rather then textbook reading, students go outside to study this. Teachers are not just teachers but mentors guiding students every step of the way. Upgrade school supplies and get parents more involved. Sadly enough, even though they have come up with real life examples, this will probably never come true. For instance, some students aren't looking to learn, and some teachers just want to get paid for what they are worth. Some schools don't have enough money to get better techs and our parents would probably complain if they have to help teach a their child when they are paying the school to do so. Anyways, here's the site: http://www.edutopia.org/big-ideas

In my search for my question does school prepare you for real life, i came across the debate between homeschoolers and public school. My initial thoughts were that public school would provide more of a real life situation because of the diversity of the school from every corner of the city. But in this website, the parents are suggesting that home-school kids learn just as much about socializing than kids who goes to public schools. Some homeschooling parents teach a a handful of kids of different ages while teaching them the same topics.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_necessary_to_go_to_school_to_experience_real_life

HW41

I decided to go a different direction on my research for a more interesting one. Instead of finding out what types of classes should be added to a school, i want to know exactly what kind of child is society trying to breed? Health is not the issue, though more and more kids today are vulnerable to diseases. I want to know what is everyone looking for in a child, is it discipline? Is it intelligence? Is it a bright future? If parents are looking for these things yet believe that children today are as stupid as ever, then they haven't done their job. If parents are responsible for a childs' outcome, then they need to take a stand and fight for what they believe in. True that they have jobs, but if they don't have time for their children, then they shouldn't complain when they don't know their child well enough. I tried looking online to see what kind of child is society trying to mold us into. Unfortunately, it's not as much of a hot topic as i hoped, so i gathered what i can get:

In this site (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/21019/teens_our_societys_dangerous_little.html?cat=25) Candida tries to explain our flaws. Societies "selfish, self-serving, egotistical and demanding monsters." In this article, she blames the advancement in modern technology for children today robbing banks, getting raped, underage drinking, etc. And to solve all this problem, the only thing the parents have to say to stop this chaos is "no." I like to see this work. "No," doesn't have much effect as it us to. Nowadays, after a parent disagrees, I would think the child would complain and whine, then go out of their own way to make the parent regret their decision. If that doesn't work, then the child will go about, depending on friends and maybe other relatives to get what they want. It's funny how much smarter children have gotten, even though parents call us idiots.

One popular topic is "how to get your kids to behave." One phrase they use a lot is "guerrilla parenting" techniques which i thought was funny. I found it funny because they refer this name to guerrilla warfare. Basically a small battalion used to fight. Have you ever heard of Sun Tzu, wrote the book art of war? One of the quotes he wrote was something like, fight with a large group, win with a small group. I feel like over the a course of the years, parenting has gone from a battle to a war. Guerrilla parenting is basically when a child acts up, the parent will act differently so to catch the children off guard. Not necessarily the opposite, but different then how one would normally act. (http://www.iftheycanlearn.org/Guerilla-Parenting-Techniques-What-are-they.html)

I found a very funny topic: when should child be exposed of the reality? We are brought up to be good little kids and made examples from imaginary characters like santa claus and other imaginary angel characters. Do we really need an imaginary character to represent the nature of child? I feel that children should be exposed to reality when they have a conscience. If you represent good with a false character then does good only exist in false lies? This is my opinion, this could all be bullshit, but here's the site:(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23378895-santa-claus-does-not-exist-school-tells-stunned-kids.do)

My new question is what kind of child is society, as a whole, trying to mold? Because everyone knows you can't be a good boy or girl but have "freedom." At least i don't believe that. And everyone is looking for something different in a child. Some parents want profit. Some want happiness, depression for their child. Others want their child to be a hero, remembered, a revolutionary, something big. And parents think they have it hard.

This topic of what kind of person society is trying to imprint in our children is a really big topic but one that cannot be discussed by me alone. And this kind of topic is not only talking about me, but about every children and anyone who considers themselves a child. So gullible at a young age, were ripe for the taken if anyone cared to. To me, society is trying to make us happy and successful when they themselves aren't. Trying to make us the solution to their problems if any. I can't say much because this is what i feel, we are the answer to all of society's problems, but we are also the beginning of another problem. And we as children grown up into adults, will think like our parents, and feel like children are the answer to our future problems.
Schools will ultimate be apart of our lives whether we like it or not. Even if one of us didn't go to school, that person would be affected by everyone around them because everyone else went to school. Schools help us make decision, that's how i feel about school. I don't think they can influence a good life or a bad life upon a student because first off, everyone has their on views on bad and good and secondly, a student can react differently, so if a school were to teach about fighting crimes, the student can rebel against this idea. And its hard to be certain whether school has done a good or bad job on a student. They could have have done what they today without school's help.

Hw 40

(I asked certain people certain question. The following people wish to remain unknown. Anyways i asked these people certain questions that fit who they are today. For instance in this interview i did not ask the person younger than me what school was like twenty years ago.)

Q1. What has school improved on the past few years?

Q2. Does the grading system accurately depicts what kind of student they are? What other skills should be added to the report cards?

Q3. Do you think the lessons in school are useful in real life situations? Which ones are and which ones aren't?

Q4. What sorts of classes would you add to school that could benefit our future?

Q5. If you could, how would you improve the school?

Interview 1:
A1. Schools have not improve at all.
A4. School should have classes that teaches you how to spend and save money. Kids these days spend way too much. Also classes that teaches you how to get a job if you don't plan to go to college.
A5. Replace teachers with more dedicated ones that are very persuasive so they can connect with students more.

Interview 2:
A1: Nothing, you students are getting dumber and dumber by the minute. Should have school seven days a week.
A2. No because girls can have sex with teachers and get good grades.
A3: That depends on the person themselves and what they are interested in.

~What is the point of school?

There is no point, there should be no school so I don't have to pay taxes. Teachers are overpaid. If they want students to learn they should do it for free.

Interview 3:
A3: Religion is useless, math literacy, literature, writing and science are useful.
A4: Sanitation, how to keep clean.
A5: Get better computers.

Interview 4:
A2: For the grading system, they need to add more details about the student. Such as how they are in class, what kind of person they are, what interest do they have, etc.
A3: The elementary lessons were probably the most useful for almost any job. Things you learn in high school are harder to use in everyday situation and even if you do find one, the math is just complicated that you can't do it in your head.
A4: They need classes that teaches kids how to deal with real life scenarios. For instance, how to put out a fire, or what to do during a robbery. Things like that are more useful.

Part B

I find what these people say to be common today. It seems that everyone blames school for the screw ups in today's world and i don't blame them. People are expected to go to school and many people will think that a kid becomes who they are today because of school. I also found that people seems to have an idea of how to improve school. Whether its another class or a complete makeover, everyone has something to say. Whats important is that everyone is affected by school whether they attend or not and everyone feels that a person is who they are today because of school. Although i disagree, it is a fairly logical thinking and nowadays, parents have high standards for their kinds in hopes that they will achieve the impossible. And if they don't there is always school to blame.

Hw 39

1. Why do people go to school when they know what to do when they grow up? Shouldn't they just put them in an environment where they learn the requirements for that job (maybe after elementary school)?

2. Schools are suppose to teach children, so why do some school do better then others? Is it because the teachers don't care? If a school is better then another, doesn't that make the lesser school obsolete?

3. Why are we learning things that will not help us in the future, especially when we are just going to forget how to use it? Wouldn't it be a waste of valuable time learning things we won't need when we could be learning how to deal with certain situations?

4. School could be a means to babysit us while our parents are away.

5. School help train kids to do things for themselves.

6. Schools are design to help us in the world

7. There's lots of diversity in school.

8. Teachers aren't as enthusiastic about their job as you would hope.

9. School have different rules and policies.

I feel like school is an imitation of life with safety nets i.e. teachers and other adults. What you do in school is observed by teachers who obviously lived as an adult. They train students to become adults. We sit and listen in class because more people will become a white collar. If we do anything inappropriate then the teachers are there to help us better ourselves. This is how I believe school is treating us. School is teaching us that for better or for worse, your able to come out the other side fine if you know what to do and how to approach it. Either that or they are teaching us to babysit and look good. We learn things in high school that we don't really need. I don't even think the teachers believe the lessons they teach are of any use. We're hear because we are at the point where we are done learning all the basic stuff from elementary school but too young to start our lives. Our minds too simple to have the status of adulthood.


What ever the reason is, one thing is for sure and it is that we are trained. We are trained to write, to speck, walk, dress, eat, the way people around us do. We are trained to act "civil," every single one of us children because we can't think for ourselves at all. We are the future, a bunch are people trained to act like people, "normal" people. If we don't act accordingly, we are put away so there's no confusion to how we are suppose to act. If we speck our minds, normals label them as blasphemy. They train us to the core, now we feel, think, act, react accordingly to the people around us. We see, we do.

Hw 38

The past few years, I have completed nothing in my life. I have done many of my homework just to have more homework stacked on top of it. I have cleaned my clothes just to have them dirty again. I read a book just to finish and read another. I have eaten just to starve again. I have taken showers just to be dirty again. I have slept just to sleep again. What is the point of all this repeated process? I have walked to school just to walk back home. I have learn basics just to learn the complicated lessons. Sometimes I wonder if all of this will end...
As a great man once said, "Do not let your school get in the way of your education." Well, it is harder done then said. Everyday, I hope that this day won't be like yesterday: Kids talk loud, trying to top one another, telling each other their secrets discreetly while telling the whole school. A push and a shove here, pointless bickering, laughing, and dancing. Then everyone turns their attention to a single crowd that has manage to grab hold of everyone's leash. Fucking dogs. This certain group consist of jockeys, teasers, jokers, and loud mouths. This is what everyone idolize. They snap their finger and everyone acts as though they are familiar to them, like they know that they are kings and queens of some sort. The entire school was a drama club, nothing more then what you see in Broadway. I am a student, this is my school, and it is getting in the way of my education. Now before the accident occurred, I envy these idiots. They don't think like a pessimist and worry about the actions they take and feel like it will come back to haunt them, nor worry about what they are going to do with their lives, unlike me. No, the only thing they care about is the situation they are in now, which is "how can i be one of the cool people", or if they already one, "how can i keep my stats up?" Sounds like politics to me. Well that all changed over time.
Six days and seven hours before the accident: The "single crowd" i was referring too, everyone knew them. There was Tom and Cleveland, both on the football team. But the story isn't about them. There's Craig, who seems to joke about everything, and seems to always wear a cocky smile. But this story isn't about him. There's Jessica and Jill, cheerleaders, and very cute. But this isn't about them. This is about their leader, for every group has but one leader, and her name was Tina. Tina lives in a mansion on the far side of town, owned by both her wealthy and successful parents who were gone most of the time. So they wired her money, and hope that she can become independent just as they were. Their plans backfired when they told their butlers and maids that their daughter was in charge. Ever since then, she has told her "servants" what to do, and what they can't do. She developed dependency issues along with a bitchy attitude, and took advantage of her wired money to pretty up her body. It was depressing really, and what's more depressing is that every guy wants her, and every girl wants to be like her. Isn't life complicated? Anyways, the highlight of the day was that Tina was having a party over at her place, in six day.
Four days and seven hours before the accident: I've heard it all, boy telling other boys who they are going to bag and bang next, girl describing in detail what they are going to dress to the party. Everyone was invited, so it's no wonder why people are talking about the party as though they know exactly what's going to happen. Some people will amaze you with the kind of stuff their into. People planning to bring firecrackers, cigarettes, wine bottles, condoms. All this illegal shit under one house and whose going to rat us out? The servants? As the class leave humanities, we witness Tina's bitchy side. She pinned a kid against his locker, with all her friends surrounding him, like they were going to mob him. She apparently was angry at the fact that he gave her the wrong answers for homework. She pushed the kids so hard against the lockers you'd wonder where the teachers are. After another shove, and another shout, she left the dog whimpering. And all we did was wonder if that kid is uninvited to the party.
Two days and five hours before the accident: Last class of the day, on a Friday is usually the time of day where kids should hit by a nun wielding a ruler. Fifty minutes of laughing, taunting, disrespectful kids. Kids sitting on their desk, talking to their friends again about the party. By this time, the teacher is either sitting on their chair planning out their weekend, or in the bathroom taking a long break. There's Tina in the classroom, having other girls apply finger nail polish for her. She has that superior air around her that leaves kids feeling uncomfortable when they are too close. The bell rings and we all leave as one lucky jockey gets picked to give Tina a piggyback ride to her limo outside the school.
Twenty-two hours before the accident: I lie in bed thinking about how life is very much repeated over and over and over. It's no wonder why history repeats itself. You can only do something enough times before you screw up or give up. We do things each day that same as the day before, but for what? For the experience, the pleasure, the status, the attention? Why does a person want to be like that certain group? It seems like they have everything given to them because of who they are. They wear make ups to pretty the face they can't stand, they bully people so it's to not look weak, they scream and shout for dominance, they hang in groups so they don't look lonely or independent. Why do we worship such abomination? It's not just high school kids, but adults as well. From movie stars, to singers, etc. They're all acts so why do we envy those people?
About thirty minutes into the party: What happened was a prank that involved Tina, an expensive perfume bottle, and nitroglycerin. Apparently someone bought some of this nitroglycerin and replace what was in the perfume with it, as a prank. The perfume bottle exploded and the glass particles injured many people within a five feet radius. But the real victim was the person holding the bottle, expecting a spray of liquid dust with a familiar scent of dandelions, and not an explosion that ruptures her face scaring her for life, Tina. And, just like in Broadway, we all scream and dance frantically, each of us doing their part whether it'd be running, screaming for help, or dialing nine-one-one. We all look so nice for our parts, short hair brushed back with a blaze tuxedo with a bow tie, and formal shoes, or a long brushed down hair with a long shiny dress to match the hair with high heels. We all look so pretty for such a tragic event.
Epilogue: A month later, people started talking about Tina. The accident disfigured her face so badly the surgeons couldn't fix it. They closed up her wounds with the extra skin from her body. Now her face looks like yoda with blonde hair. When she came back, she lost her status. Her friends won't hang out with her anymore, the nerds won't help with her homework. Because she was so dependent on people, her parents quit their jobs to take care of their daughter. And i realize why we repeat things everyday for so long. To learn and experience things. We do different agendas everyday to learn different things. We read a book to help see things differently, we see things differently we learn how to appreciate things. We clean our dirty clothes because it's valuable to us. We repeat things every single day in hopes that we learn something from it. The more agenda, the more experience. The more experience, the bigger our opportunity. Take for example, the jockeys. They learn how to deal with their status and attention because that's the way they want to live. They want to be a successful athlete, they need college degrees. With college, you need some type of learning. Think the girls who pretty themselves up. They research designs, and modelings, one day they will know what to do and how to do them. They all have agendas and learn from it. Tina had nothing, and invested everything on her looks. She learns from her looks and without it, she has nothing.

Hw 37

How does a person achieve "cool" through their own perspective? What influenced their perception of cool?

People act cool, because it is one of the few ways to be remembered for a period of time after death. One way to do this is having two faces. A person knows that they cannot be liked from both parents and friends if they act the same thus bringing out different characters. Another way is to be socially known or famous. We also achieve cool by having some sort of property named after someone, or can be seen and admired such as a mansion, or a park. Such attempts of cool has changed over the course of the years, from dressing nicely to poorly, from specking correctly to illiterate. But there are some things about cool that will never change, for instance, a suit on a man will probably never go out of style. Expensive toys, such as the ipod or gaming console will be loved by many. Even the things we don’t find appealing such as popped collars, cartoon network, or Canada, may be viewed as cool by a different culture or a small group of people. Everyone does whatever it takes to be cool, but to certain people only. If you are trying to appeal to your friends, you wouldn’t care what people in Russia or Japan thinks. I am trying to say that we are all acting cool as a rite of passage to a certain group. We are all acting cool, even the criminals we lock up. They too trying to do whatever it takes to be accepted by a certain person or group. The only difference between criminals and citizens is that the majority of criminals did not receive the affection from their guardians while growing up, so they come up with their own ways of receiving attention from the world. Criminals, like most of us, try to achieve cool with the same goals, such as becoming a millionaire or to be known, as we do, but with their own methods.

Money is a very effective and easy way to be known,especially when you have a large sum of cash. Attempts of gaining millions of dollars are used by businessman, sports players, fashion designers, actors/actresses. Of course we don’t know all of the people who fall into these categories, but we know at least the best or personal favorites. One widely known criminal who become a celebrity is named Alphonse Gabriel “Al” Capone, or “Scarface”. Capone was different than most people. Born in a family of eight children, he did not seek to become a barber like his dad. Capone wanted to be widely known and famous, one of the ways to become cool. His methods however were not legal. After being expelled from P.S. 133 at the age of 14, he worked wherever he can such as candy stores and bowling alleys. He soon came across Johnny Torrio who introduced him to the gangster life. He looked up to Johnny Torrio, who become his mentor and Capones' idol. One of his earlier gangs Capone was involved in was Junior Forty Thieves, Brooklyn Ripper and Five Points Gang. He later moved to Chicago. Torrio son left Chicago, leaving Capone all his wealth and shares. From there, Capone become notorious and owned a large portion of Chicago’s underworld.

“Capone was notorious during the Prohibition Era for his control of large portions of the Chicago underworld, which provided the Outfit with an estimated US $100 million per year[15] in revenue. This wealth was generated through all manner of illegal enterprises, such as gambling and prostitution,[6] although the largest moneymaker was the sale of liquor. In those days Capone had the habit of "interviewing" new prostitutes for his club himself.1Demand was met by a transportation network that moved smuggled liquor from the rum-runners of the East Coast and The Purple Gang in Detroit and local production in the form of Midwestern moonshine operations and illegal breweries. With the funds generated by his bootlegging operation, Capone's grip on the political and law-enforcement establishments in Chicago grew stronger. Through this organized corruption, which included the bribing of Mayor of Chicago William "Big Bill" Hale Thompson, Capone's gang operated largely free from legal intrusion, operating casinos and speakeasies throughout Chicago. Wealth also permitted Capone to indulge in a luxurious lifestyle of custom suits, cigars, gourmet food and drink (his preferred liquor was Templeton Rye from Iowa), jewelry, and female companionship. He garnered media attention, to which his favorite responses was "I am just a businessman, giving the people what they want" and "All I do is satisfy a public demand."[6] Capone had become a celebrity.”

Capone, unlike most of us, did not seek affection from his father the barber. He wanted to become famous just as his mentor Torrio was. He easily become known, because unlike most citizens, his methods were illegal but very entertaining. Prostitution, gambling, liquor stores, all of these were of value to many people. He was able to bribe the law enforcers, the mayor, anyone that might have got in his way. Then he brought the underworld business out of the shadows and into the street. His charm became a liking to everyone, even the media didn’t seem to mind Capone. His illegal methods got him to become a star, even after accused of murder and rape, he was still able to hold the public’s trust because he was cool. No matter how he made his money, bootlegged products, illegal breweries, he had money and fame and no one was going to call him a criminal. With money and property, he was able to buy everyone's trust and satify his costumers, in which everyone started to love him.

One of the ways of being cool or at least seemingly cool because you are being acknowledged by many people is getting attention any means necessary, through pity or heroic action. This is mostly seen through celebrities. Whether they are having another baby, or had sex in public, or addicted to drugs, it would instantaneously be on the media and magazines. There is one man who sought for this kind of attention, although he did not use the standard methods of gaining attention. Instead, Keith Jesperson, aka “The Happy Face Killer,” used fear to gain the everyone’s attention. Born with an abusive father, and a family who hates him, Keith grew up with a thirst for attention. Like Capone, he didn't want to grow up and become like his father. He sought attention from the people he wanted to grow up and become, The Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Unfortunately, after a training accident, he was dismissed and from there on he sought revenge against society. “Keith Hunter Jesperson (born April 6, 1955, Chilliwack, British Columbia) is a Canadian-born American serial killer known as the "Happy Face Killer" for the smiley face he drew on his many letters to the media and prosecutors.[1] He first drew the smiley face on the wall of a toilet where he left an anonymous confession to killing Taunja Bennett, this was hundreds of miles away from the scene of the crime. When that didn't elicit a response, he began writing letters…while Jesperson sat in the Clark County Jail for the murder of Julie Winningham, he began talking to his attorney, Thomas Phelan, about other crimes that he had committed starting with Taunja Bennett. Keith also confessed to a large number of murders that he didn't commit. He sought attention from the media by taking credit for many more murders. Many of these murders happened when he had a conclusive alibi and he later recanted most of these confessions.” Jesperson, never was given attention or love from his family (and I feel attention is something we all crave from especially from our family), he was given abuse. Abuse from his father was the only form of attention he was given and that was only from his father. He focused his experience with his father on all the victims he have murdered. His signature weapon was a rope in which he strangled his victims. He then sent varies amounts of letters to medias across the nation, always labeled with a smiley face. He later felt that confessing to more crimes then he has done would give him a higher body count, in which case would label him a bigger threat to society, for his goal was to harm society. He methods strikes fear into society, confessing to more crimes than he has committed makes him look more dangerous to society so he can become known.

Another way to look at how these criminals became to be, other than how they become who they are, but why. Why didn't Capone try to become like his father, a barber? There maybe a lot of answers to this, for instance, because he grew up with seven other siblings all trying to achieve their parents attention, there wasn't much left for Capone, so he became independent. Or because becoming a barber didn't appeal to Capone, so he did what he could to not become like his father, and Torrio was his way out. For Jesperson, he was the middle child, but he was treated like a stranger compared to his two brothers and two sisters. For instance he had to pay a thirty dollar rent while his siblings paid nothing. Also, he was the only one abused by his father, and no one in his family tried to stop the father. This of course scared Jesperson for life. But in doing so, Jesperson enjoyed torture, and in his early like, burned animals as a hobby. His path was chosen, when he started burning animals and because no one in his family cared for him, he was allowed to do this freely. Because he had no control in his life, he got a sick pleasure out of controlling who lives and who dies. These criminals path was chosen from the start of their early life and what they say as cool only because of the environment they lived in.

There are many ideas of cool, and usually a persons perception of cool comes from the environment they live in. But sometimes a person's path is not chosen by their culture, for instance, religion, ethnic, etc. Sometimes, you don't like what your culture offers, so you seek somethings else. These are all methods to become cool and fit in with a certain group. Killing is no exception. Killing has gone on for as long as a living organism was determined to live. Killing is no different than being a celebrity. They both have their ups and down, and they want to be the star attention, the unique one, out of the environment they live in. We all are trying to become “cool” so we are to be remembered for years to come, and we all will do whatever means necessary to become cool.

Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/jesperson/murder_1.html