58

From all of the views that I heard there seems to be one overall consensus. The lower in the social structure you are the smaller your chances are for success. However when it came to building relationships there was a mixed opinion. Some people thought that social structure only determined the activities or the conversation within the relationships while other people thought that in fact social structure not only effects the context of the relationship but how it was built and what those relationships mean to one and other.

Some of the observations by other students seem to have the opinion that it's not about class as much as race. They hold the belief that race effects how people build their relationships and that class has very little to do with it. I think that the reason that a lot of people would feel this way is because in our school there aren't very many lower class whites. By that cultural background and not financial situation. So the exposure to that culture of working class whites is not prevalent in S.O.F.

In this unit on parenting I think that there is a lot that I have discovered but still a great deal to investigate. It might have been the fact that we had exhibition week and the debates so I missed a lot of class but I wish that we had been able to learn more about some of the differences in parenting around the world. Something that I find very interesting is how kids can be very different in just their train of thought around the world. It's hard to believe that there are people out there who view a cow as something sacred, and not just a hamburger. Not only is that incredibly interesting but also the differences in our country. Something I have written a lot about is the lack cultural unity in this country. Now in no way am I advocating for nationalism or a ban on immigration but I think that presence of differences inspires this nation to a vast array of parenting philosophies.

For my question about social structure in parenting there is still a lot left to be done but I think that I have been able to figure out some interesting things. For example just looking at the student population of our school you can see how people from all different backgrounds have been changed by parenting. Whether it be the artsy kid that doesn't value traditional book smarts but is highly intellectual or the straight edge son of a banker who does well at all the book work but isn't much for abstract thinking. These are all direct results of culture in parenting. To me that difference is a highly positive thing, not only does it inspire the differences in thinking that we all appreciate around here, but it helps accurately sort people to be somewhat cold and blunt.

56

Questions: What is the single most effective parenting strategy, by that I mean employing love,obedience ect.?

A (paraphrase): Love because from that it is possible for a parent to incorporate any of those other methods but love has to be the foundation.

Q: How do you think that most parents figure out their parenting strategies?

A: I think that most of them feel it out and talk to people they know with kids and probably do the opposite their parents did.

Q: What are some of the worst qualities that you think most if not all parents have?

A: Control. I think that all parents have a desire to be in total control and sometimes they do things that are in the name of principle but aren't necessarily right.

For this series of interviews I thought that it would be most effective to ask general questions because I think that's what most average students in our school have an expertise on so therefore I think that it wouldn't make sense to waste that research and try to give a very detailed and long question. Also I think that having sources to back up my generalizations about kids is going to be good for any sort of paper of presentation on this subject.

QUESTION: What do you see as the difference in parenting strategy by social class and how do you think that translates into the school system?

57

Parenting is something that everyone has an experience of. Whether you were raised by your biological parents or grew up in a foster home everyone has a figure in their life that is clearly identified as the parent or in politically correct terms "guardian". The question is how should we raise kids? Well for starters I think that there is no clear answers and it all determines on a wide arange of variables. For examble the financial resources available, the neighborhood, culture, religion, available schools, all of these things can determine what would make someone an effective parent or render them ineffective. The techniques that might produce a healthy white child in westchester probably wouldn't serve as effective to a African American child in an urban environment. So from that I think that in some circumstances it would be perfectly fair for a parent to give their child "tough love" andbe somewhat mean because if you live in a dangerous area those are the skills that kid needs to have. On the other hand if you live in a very safe area with very good schools then following what the doctors say is perfectly fine. My point is that far too often people make sweeping judgements about how other people parent without considering the outside factors, and the doctors or social theorist's make their analysis far to general.

Even though the direct contact with parents is what makes the biggest difference on raising a child I do think that there's some truth to the saying that it takes a village to raise a child. You can argue that because if you think about all of the people that kids come across and all of the important people in their lives that aren't their parents the life of a child is truly determined by a lot of people. However it's still the parents overall because the path that a child take and the people they meet is determined by the parents and the circumstances tht they set forth.

55

Part 1: What kind of effect does social class and economic structure have on building relationships for adollecesnts?

Part 2: Sam, your two questions seem to have great potential for coming together and making a very interesting and informative study. However I think that to find a clear and insightfull answer you should think about making your question as clear and focused as possible. For example, what kind of relationships, what sorts of action's do friends take in effecting these relationships. Also as far as the amount of friends someone has I think that some things to think about are; if one has more friends does that open up the door for bad influnces? If, yes is that inspired by a feeling of cockiness among the person with all of those friends and if no is there some kind of necessary isolation at times and is there truly too much of a good thing.

Christian, I think that one of most important interactions teenagers have are with adults and I think that with this question you really have an opportunity to explore the possible inspirations and/or traumas that come from these intereactions. Something that I think would be helpfull to your question would be to specify what kind of adults are kids dealing with and perhaps the context of the interaction; I think that if you leave the door open to different adults in different power positions it's going to be difficult to get a clear answer. Finally I think that it would be cool if you could get different perspectives from people of different backgrounds as to what their definition of a healthy adult too kid relationship is.

Part 3: I can't come up with the wording for it quite yet but I want to revise my question to be specific to two comparative groups. Also a decision hasn't been made as to whether these groups are strictly economic or maybe an ethnic or racial component could be interesting. Also I want to look into how answerable my question is and make sure that at least I can draw some conclusions that are supportable but I don't think in this format any of them are outright provable.

Gibson, Justin. "What's Wrong With This Picture?." Washington Post 3/18/07: n. pag. Web. 18 May 2010. .
This article is a first person account of what it is like to be involved in a interacial coupling these days. What I thought was so interesting about this article was the differences between generation. The author said that he felt that amongst members of his own generation there were little to no problems but he felt that he was viewed as an outsider or not accepted by older generations. I thought that this would be helpfull because I think that a lot of our perception of forging relationships differs from older generations and an interacial relationship is a deffinate cross roads of society.

Maiese, Michelle. "Establishment Of Personal Relationships." Beyond Intractability. N.p., September 2003. Web. 18 May 2010. .
This article is basically a run down of relationships and what there importance is to society and how they can have lasting effects on peoples function's in the world. I thought that this would be a good source for my study because to understand the differences in relationships it's helpfull to know something about how relationships work in general.

54

The Myers Briggs test was really interesting because it gave a specific personality type. I think that the questions it asked were phrased in a way where you didn't necessarily feal that your giving away a lot of information about your personality which I think contributes to the accuracy of the results. Also when I took this test I was unaware of how it graded you and what the letters meant so I think that helped me give the most accurate answers possible. At the end of the test I was told that I am a esfp, which is apparently someone who is very in the moment and spontaneous and so forth. I think that I fill that role but I also think that if I got any of the personality types that I would find some things in common with that type. So therefore a fun experiment would be to give someone the test and tell them their result was different then it actually was and see if they agree with the outcome.
Something that I found interesting about the results were that a lot of my friends that took the test were also esfp's or had a lot of the letters in common. What I thought about most was how are these types developed or are people born with some natural brain alignment which causes them to think a certain way. My geuss would be some combination of both; I think that people are not only raised with a certain movement to one side or the other but people also are born with some type of pre-deposition. However I think that the majority of these personality types are compatable with one and other but if people put too much stock into the results people become trapped and feel profiled which is certainly not a good for anybody because then they could possibly loose their beliefs about their own life.

53

Taking the survey was just like any other survey that I have taken. I didn't feel like any of the questions were going to surprise anyone or make anyone think differently about any of the topics covered. I think that the main reason for not taking it that seriously is that we all know how the test is going to be looked at and what the test is looking for. I think that if your taking a survey and you don't know how its going to be measured someones more likely to tell the truth or at least provide a more interesting response.
One of the main things I noticed in the survey is that when it came to family matters people seemed to all be in line. Now to some that would make them think that we have a school full of people with happy home lifes but I think that its pretty coincidential. In my oppinion this is example of how the survey isn't fully accurate. I just have a hard time believing that everyone has these totally different views on sexuality or what not but at home everybody is living the same life. Mostly for the reason that many views that people have and experiences they have are inspired by or a direct result of their upbringing.
I think that the survey done by the department of education was most likely a lot more accurate. The main reason that I say that is because I think that since people know that the results are just going to some beuracrat somewhere and being anlyzed in an office in midtown and not like our survey being looked at and analyzed by people we know and encounter everyday. I think that because we deal with the people that wrote the survey and are looking at the survey somehow that makes people think that their more at risk to being exposed. Besides that the department of education survey was also able to spark some more revealing answers. Particularly answers regarding the racial disparity and lack of contreception among certain ethnic and geographical groups.

52

The basic principle of human interaction is that people are in need of other attention and desperate to feel a connection with other people. I think people feel this way because there's a natural feeling to not only bond with other people but also feel like your doing something right in the world and get emotionally compensated for what your doing in the world. Furthermore there are clearly certain techniques that people use to draw different kinds of attention and therefore forge different kinds of relationships.
One of the main reasons people try to connect is because of death. Everyone wants to be remembered after they die and the thought of dieing and knowbody ever rememberin use is tragic. I think deep down people would rather die thought of as a bad person rather than not thought of at all. This can be seen clearly through the sentimentality that people display all the time. "Remember when we went to.. Oh the time he did...". That feeling of sentimentality can be different for different people. I think that some people use it to bring the people around them up so to thereore make themselves look better. However there are some people that shy away from sentimentality. These individuals tend to be older people who have a hard time coming to bear with their age or whatever and don't like to think about how old they really are.
Truly it's really quite diffiuclt to be alone in the world; truly alone where there is no contact or a feeling of belonging or obligation to something. Even the kid who sits in the back of class and won't talk to anyone isn't really alone. We have endless back ups; our family, our country, our neighborhood, politics, nationality. All of those things give people a sense of belonging, and even if those traditional elements don't spend an hour looking up random stuff on the internet and you can find people who bond over the weirdest and most unthinkable things. So even though we have communication and bonding no matter what the real game is to get as much communication as possible. The more people you can bond with the more respected you are, and who cares whether or not people are being lied too because people like being lied to knowbody wants to hear the truth.
Finally I think that overall its healthy to want to be heard and liked by other people. I think this because people inspire the best out of other people. We are the driving force for everything good in the world. Unfortunateley were the driving force for everything bad as well. It is true that it takes a village to raise a child. We are all dependent on someone somewhere for something. Why do we do what we do? Evolution and natural desire. Maybe. Probably not.

HW 51

School has drawbacks and advantages just like everything else in life. What makes school so hard for many if not most people is the fact that school is a requirement for twelve years. Furthermore this requirement is so difficult because it comes at the age when people have the shortest attention span and the biggest ambitions. School’s most damaging affect is to ambition; school makes you focus only on what they are teaching which usually isn’t very interesting. Everybody has that one favorite teacher that taught that one cool class because for most people all the other classes are boring too tolerable with little past that.
The American educational system has basically zero relation with everybody’s life. All teachers say about that is “well you have to learn to tolerate things you don’t like that’s part of being an adult”. Well if being an adult means doing something you hate for eight hours a day five days a week then why would any reasonable person want to be an adult? The answer to that is people have been pretty successfully manipulated into feeling that they should just deal with something instead of actually doing something about it. It’s almost as if the people running our schools just resent their time in school and think that everybody else has to deal with it. One would think that given the politics of the 1960’s and the entire baby boomer generation that there would be a desire to reform our education system to apply the core knowledge and at the same time make things engaging for the students. However virtually nothing has changed.
The education system also doesn’t take into consider the differences that people experience geographically. I think that even though our system is equally bad for everyone that there should be some changes in curriculum to catch everyone up. Because as much as the education system gets legislated there’s no way to legislate how people raise their kids and where people grow up. For example anyone who lives in a suburban environment or just has a lot of experience outside of an urban atmosphere wouldn’t find an English regents test particularly difficult or out of the ordinary but for someone who doesn’t know about that culture their performance on that test would be highly impacted.
I guess my point is that in our culture there isn’t an equal playing field. It’s impossible to have one because of our culture or lack thereof. We come from immigrants (or forced immigration); given this multiculturalism we can’t have one single curriculum that dominates our education because with that single curriculum we force people out of their own culture and into a fake culture that really only appears on paper. Our sense of nationalism is only really channeled through violence and a Teddy Roosevelt desire for imperialism. What we don’t have is a face or a religion that represents this country. So in conclusion my simple point is that we need to respect every background for what it means and from there educate around their limitations to expand and integrate.

HW 50

#1 Gatto Against school 6- In this essay Gatto gives a history of mandatory and secondary schooling in the United States and talks about alternatives to what he describes as boring and unecessary. Gatto outlines the Prussian origin of the American education system and while doing that highlights the totalitarian nature of mandatory schools. Also Gatto seems to believe that children that are homeschooled have the potential to become far more inttelectual and develop into individuals instead of brainwashed consumers. Finally he lays out points for parents to prevent their children from becoming brainwashed. For example he says that parents should teach their kids to think critically, have an inner self as not to be bored, and take on material not often covered in school.











Overall I agree with Gatto's view. However I take issue with his view on modern day home schooling. One thing that school provides that can't be found anywhere else is an opportunity for children to socially grow up; to develop skills that aren't found in a university level economics book. As far as comparing historic figures that did not attend schoold to today is not comparable. For one thing many of these figures came from rich families that could afford a private tutor for all subjects and today those people would probably be at a bording school in Connecticut. However I do agree with Gatto that parents should play an active role in encouraging their kids to think independently and take an initiative for their own education.











# 2 Paulo Freirie wrote in his piece about the difference between the "banking system" of education and the "problem solving". First of all by distinguishing the common practice of memorization, teacher oriented homework notes quiz ect, as the banking system establishes that Freirie doesn't approve of it. The "problem solving" method which entails working in small groups and the students figuring things out on their own. Freirie also likens the banking system to oppresion and seems to believe that the standard Prussian system of education steals thought from the students. On the other hand Freirie is a big fan of the problem solving method and talks about how students learn best when they are put into small groups and figure things out on their own. Basically Freirie is what many what consider a member of the "groovy side" of education.





Personally I agree with Freirie in that students learn best on their own and hammering facts into peoples head doesn't make great minds, but on the other hand if the strict ideals of memorization and short term education seem to produce greater statistical results. I think that it's a matter of choice between learning and memorizing. Someone can be at college level when it comes to history but if the discipline to sit down and do the work isn't there then the odds are that the person that memorized the material will do better in class. I think that it's important to learn but it's also important to know what to do with the knowledge you gain. In other words someone can only go so far with just knowing stuff, there comes a point when we all have to buckle down and do work we don't want to do.





#3 Lisa Delpit interview: in this piece Lisa Delpit talked about her career as an educator and specifically what she's done with Children of color. One of the main themes of the interview was that the arts is essential in encouraging typically low performing students to become involved in things such as poetry and theater and other language based activities. Also the summary before the interview talked about how Delpit feels that there is often a disconnect between middle class white educators and lower class urban youth, particularly Afican Americans. She seems to feel strongly about the teacher student relationship and how that can serve to raise the student to new levels. Therefore she seems to be part of the wanna be jesus crowd.

Her philosophy on education reminded me a lot of the teacher savior movies that we watched. In particular Freedom Writers. I thought of that because she was educated at Harvard had the opportunity to go anywhere but choose to go into the urban atmosphere to try and save children of African American descent. Furthermore she also likes bringing art into the classroom and using it to make a point not only about caring more about school and getting better grades but to learn about themeselves and feel like they belong in a safe atmosphere. I think that in the type of environment that she teaches in she has a very good strategy. The reason I say that is because in that environment there seem to be a lot of outside factors working against performance in school as well as a lack of parent enthusiasm and teacher connection. Therefore to inspire the kids and create an atmosphere where the kids want to come to school and use school as a way to break free is quite an acheivement.

#4 S.O.F. educator Tim Manley: Mr.Manley seemed to have an interesting perspective on the schooling system. For instance he came from a very traditonal suburban school atmosphere and previously taught at a traditional "banking system" school but teaches in a very "groovy" laid back way. He said that he thought the most effective way to get kids to learn was to have them work in small groups and talk amongst themesleves about specific texts and so on. I think that for a subject such as English that is a very effective strategy. But on the other hand I don't think that you can implament that into a math or science class all of the time because there are certain skills that need to be established from the very begining.

HW 49

First of all I didn't realize that I sounded like that which made me very uncomfortable to say the least. I thought that even though the message got accross there could have been more done to emphasize the alcoholism and the sad undertones instead of the outward rage and indifference displayed to the class. Furthermore I wish that we had more time to show some of the personal lives of the students and theacher and the school atmosphere.
The message of the film is a little confusing to me. I'm not sure if it's trying to humanize the teacher and show how the teacher connects and then rebels against his students, or whether the movie is trying to point out how the students are either academically resilient or dependent on the teacher. Another possibility is that the film is mocking the "teacher savior" genre and trying to show through the plot the rediculous nature of the education genre.
The movie had some things in common with the films we've watched in class. For example the teacher when inspired to teach the kids was able to connect to the students and overcome the "badass" who's attempt to disrupt the class was overcome. Also many of the characters overlap. For example the bad kids talked about how the material the class is learning wasn't relavent in their life. The movie was different however in that the teacher ends up loosing it and the future of the kids in the class is unknown and not promising which is quite different then any of the teacher savior films we watched.
In conclusion I think that there is a clear connection between teachers acting as saviors and the students responding positively or quite negatively. I think that no matter where the school is or what the demographics are there are kids that for whatever reason need something extra to perform well. But something that these movies point out but in a very stupid way is that students want to be saved or inspired by someone they can relate to. The relation can come in many forms whether its racial, political or whatever overcoming that boundry I think is close to impossible for a lot of teachers because as much as someone can read about or live near a certain culture they will never be one of them.

HW #48- Treatment for savior/ teacher movie

The students walk into the class listening to their ipods, talking not looking particularly interested, meanwhile Mr.K stands at the front. He has tired look on his face, the kind of look that says "I haven't slept in days". As a kid Mr.K wasn't much of a student, he spent most of his time cutting classes and smoking weed in the bathroom. His logic in becoming a teacher was why not, summers off, a good union. However things had started going increasingly down hill. Only fifteen percent of his students passed his midterm and the board of education was on his ass for drinking on the job.

The class continued with its usual slow momentum everyone in the back making noises know-body paying him any attention as he asked the class to open up their text book to look at this and learn that. He tried to deliver a half hearted speech about how if they didn't pay attention they wouldn't pass and go to college and so on. What he didn't realize was in that area know-one in his class was going to college anyway and if anything his speech just turned him off even more, he saw the looks coming at him from students who were living below the poverty line who had never been north of Myrtle avenue. He moved on and went back to his lecture about the Korean war.

The next day K had a meeting with the principle Jack Fanook, he was what most people would consider an over compensator. After sitting down Jack immediately turned red, he had a bad habit of getting to worked up and saying things that most people would consider over the line and an attempt to seem like a macho alpha male. He screamed at K about the student graduation rate and how bad of a teacher K was. He told him that these kids weren't going anywhere, told him that he needs to set some realistic goals for his students and stop expecting so much from them and told him he was a drunk and a know-body. Worse of all he gave the news that no teacher wants to hear. He's calling the D.O.E. to have him rubber roomed. After that K walks out of the room go's to his classroom and writes on the board "listen to your heart". He then went ahead and took his own life.

HW 44

The two pieces that I read were the Obama speech to students around the world and the Thomas Friedman piece about the lack of innovation coming out of the United States and the increasing competitivenes coming from around the world notably China. Not surprisingly the two pieces took on two different views. The Obama speech giving an uplifting inspiring speech uncouraging all Americans of all backgrounds to fully commit to education with the promise of a good life at the end of the road where as the Friedman piece takes the stance that America just can't compete at the level of the world anymore and companies have no financial reason to stay either.

Even though I think that Obama gave a bit of an exagerated speech I think he was much more honest and realistic then any other president has been. Obama was actually able to make a real life connection with people who might not normally take a president seriously. However I think that he failed to show that he understands that for some people succeding in school is impossible. But perhaps having a job such as president of the United States doesn't allow you to make such remarks. Cosidering the fact that many people didn't even want the president to be talking to their kids he came dangerously close to saying something true. Hopefully there will be enough people out there who will be able to read deep into what the president said and actually make an attempt in school, but if your cutting school everyday the odds are you don't even know that the president made a speech.

The article by Thomas Friedman talked about how as the quality of education has risen over seas the quality of education in the United States has considerably decreased. Add that to the fact that opening a factory in China is considerably cheaper then in the United States that equates to a scientific market that is no longer in need of the United States. Where I disagree with Friedman is that the United States to the average consumer is where the best of everything is made, and considering the fact the Americans are the single largest group of consumers in the world its in the best interest of companies to innovate from within the United States. In other words a great product from China can go a long way, but a great product from the Unites States becomes ever lasting. However less and less Americans care about where their toys or computers are made so credibility of U.S. products is dangerously close to fading away.

HW 42

If there is one word that might get to the heart of the American dream, what every poor non english speaking immigrant thinks of when they think of America is college. The American higher education system is one of if not the most well respected in the world. But how fair is it? Is it really possible for someone to come in straight off the boat work hard and go to Yale. Or is it more likely that a rich white kid who had grades in the low b area and a fifteen hundred on their sat get the spot? Furthermore even if the poor kid who "pulled himself up by his bootstraps" got into an ivy league school what about financial aid? Are they going to be able to pay for it? Those are the questions that I have been pondering throughout this course.

I believe that the significance of this topic is very obvious to see. Whichever side of the aisle you land on college is something that has in some way had an impact on you. Wheather your a hard working guy who looses his job because the company wants to replace you with someone with a technical degree or a rich white person who messed up in school and feels they deserve a second chance, its all quite significant.

As well as the affect that college has on individuals it also has a great affect on society as a whole. In the United States today it's increasingly difficult to make a living without a college degree. So with this change society has to take into account the fact that as our population grows our system becomes more and more competitive and the job market could possibly become more ecomocally prejudice. So therefore the question has to be asked do we need to expand affirmative action to be more ecomically centered, keep it as a more race based system or is affirmative action just generally wrong. All subjects that are incredibly signficant to ourselves and society.

HW 41

Gomstyn, Alice. "Top Colleges Mum on Legacy Admissions." abcnews.go.com. 11/4/08. ABC News, Web. 26 Feb 2010. .
This article talks about how despite the fact the ivy league colleges are accepting less people the rate of acceptance among legacies has stayed rather consistent. Furthermore I think that this article is also trying to say that even though the legacy rate has stayed constant that doesn't mean the legacy are any less capable of doing the work.


Gasman, Marybeth. "Perspectives: A “Legacy” of Racial Injustice in American Higher Education." diverseeducation. 12/1/08. Web. 2 Mar 2010.
This article is different from the one above because in this article they discuss how legacies of wealthy and important families have caused racial descrimination within the ivy league system. Also this article shows how the financial contributions of a family to a college affect the chances of a family member beeing accepted.

Karabel, Jerome. "The Legacy of Legacies." Longview Institute. Longview Institute, Web. 2 Mar 2010. .
This article provides a brief history of legacy admissions and then talks about how universities have been forced to be much more selective with legacies forcing them to take the legacies that overpreform or come from very wealthy background

Golden, Daniel. "Admissions Preferences Given." WSJ. 13/1/03. Wall Street Journal, Web. 2 Mar 2010. In this article the author shows the parallel fight between affirmative action and legacy acceptance. In other words how legacy admission has overwelmingly favored whites and afirmative action has overmelmingly favorved minortities. Furthermore the author also shows how students at ivy league schools have been less and less in favor of legacy admission.

Cohen, Carl. "Race Preference in College Admissions." Heritage Foundation. 29.4.1998. Heritage Foundation, Web. 9 Mar 2010. .
This article published by the conserative advocacy group the Heritage foundation provides a contrast to the arguement that forced racial diversity is either morally correct or an ethic necesity. This is helpfull in my work because it helps me better understand the two sides or the spectrum.

Shagall, Yelena. "Racism Plagues College Campus." Chicago Flame. University Of Illinois, 21/1/03. Web. 10 Mar 2010. .

This article talks about how racism exits throughout the higher education system and how upcoming affirmative action cases could affect college racism. The article also talks about how despite the perception of a color neutral education system racism is still quite prevalent.

HW 40

ME. Q. What do you think is the main reason behind teachers feeling that they have to absolutley dominate the classroom?
A: I think that it's a combination of tradition and a feeling that without a feeling of fear in the class the teacher won't be respected, furthermore the domination complex seems to be more potent in female teachers.
Q: How important is studet teacher relations i determing grades?
A: Teachers are human, therefore they make personal judgements. I thI ink that if someone shows a positive attitude towards the teacher and creates a bond with him/her they are much more likely to succeed. (Participation is a nice way they like to put it)
Person 2 (student with low grades): Q. Why do you feel that you have done poorly throughout your high school career?
A. Because all of the material that we have learned in school has no relevance in my life, and because I spent so long procarstinating about how school hasn't really done anything for me so at times when I have wanted to care my work ethic hasn't been developed enough to thuroughly complete all my work.
Q. Overall do you think that teachers are fair people?
A. Some of them are but a lot of them seem that they just want to live up to societies expectations above improving the education of individual students.
Person 3 (student with high grades) Q. How have you been able to stay succesfull throughout your high school career?
A. My parents are constantly on me about doing well in school beause their true believers in the "American dream" or whatever and basically if I want to have any kind of social life I need to do well in school, furthermore I think that one thing I've been able to do well is block out all the b.s. that comes with school and try and think of the long term.
Q. Do you think that because you do well in school your social status is tainted?
A. Absolutley, especially with the "party crowd" they seem to equate good performance in school with social mediocrity.
Person 4 (adult) Q. Do you think that the public school system gives an overall fair experience to all parties involved?
A. No, I think that students get bogged down in a bureacuracy and cheap political stats while teachers are forced to teach material that they don't find interesting and their students don't value.
Q. How do you think your school experience matches up with the modern school experience?
A. I think that it's pretty much the same thing. Maybe there's more racial equality in the school system but the economic equality is just as bad if not worse. Also when I was in school there was high stakes testing but not as much from the state much more in school testing.

For this assignment what I wanted to do was compare and contrast how different prospectives feel about school. Generally the feeling that came across the strongest was that people don't feel that their learning very important information. Something that would be interesting to investigate from that would be do that many people really feel that way or is that just something that the media and people around us say. Furthermore another thing that I noticed not only in these interviews but in life is that seldom do you find a student who is inspired to do well in school just because they want to, in other words no outside pressure or circumstances in ones life that would make doing well in school a necesity.

Art Project Photos Part 2

The photos that I listed above are all people who have influenced my view of cool. Overall they all fit the mold of a masculine male who generally uses minipulation and violence to get what they want. Even though many of the people whos photos are listed aren't commonly refered to as "hip" these days I think that they all can go under a general societal view of cool. The reason being is they all fit into at least one of four very important catagories.
1. Physically fit/ Good looking
2. Relaxed, calm collected
3. Good skills with woman
4. Ocassional violent outbreaks

Art Project Photos

http://eric.b.olsen.tripod.com/images/bogart1.jpg

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/AAAAAAChange06/Dean1.jpg

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/041209/142618__dogs_l.jpg

http://orgtheory.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/quentin_tarantino.jpg

http://www.mcnblogs.com/filmfatale/samjacksonpulp.jpg

http://www.fanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/clinteastwood.jpg

http://michaelmanning.tv/blog/uploaded_images/inmcqueen-790331.jpg

Cited Works

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/apr/01/tobacco-industry-marketing
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1904624,00.html
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/marlboroman/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAExoSozc2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHy7RXJ7W8Y&feature=related

Final Draft

Cigarettes have traditionally been a driving force in shaping someone’s image. People who want to create an image of the laid back sophisticated urban intellectual; or at least that’s what it once represented. Today it takes on the role of the badass, cutting school and living the party life, but still a form of cool. So what is it that makes smoking so unique that it can represent the socially acceptable intellectual and the delinquent underage badass? Maybe both of those categories can fit under one umbrella category. Above the pack and distinguished; a cigarette says that I have a firm clear identity and I am living up to it. So therefore cigarettes fill a void of emptiness by solidifying an identity and proving independence.
Much of the cool image that cigarettes hold can be traced back to the glamorous 1950’s movie era. Actors such as Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne and James Dean showed smoking as a symbol of masculinity while actresses such as Audrey Hepburn gave smoking a sensual and attractive. People love role models and those are some of the most influential people of their generation and cigarette smoking was a big part of their image and personality. People viewed these role models as people to shape their own personalities. People allow celebrities to shape them with misguided deadly devises because for many it’s a better option than having to come to terms with their own personality and their own faults.
Another thing to think about when talking about smoking is how it’s been able to keep its social acceptability. Even in the age where the link between smoking and serious health problems is beyond a doubt. For example our current President Barack Obama is a smoker even though in most states it’s illegal to smoke in a bar. Also its been widely shown that the health risks of marijuana are much less then cigarette smoke but using cannabis is still viewed as taboo by much of society. Truly something to be in awe of, a product that kills half its users gets taxed to death but can still hook one of the most well educated Presidents in the history of the United States. Now if that’s not cool then I challenge anyone to find a better example, because our sense of cool completely overrides our bodily needs which tell us that we should not throw something like that into our body twenty times a day. So in short cool versus health? Cool takes the prize every time.
So if we’ve already established that we’ve been sucked into this pointless exercise the real question is how did we get there and what were the tobacco companies able to do to get us into smoking? Cigarettes were first marketed as a product for the rich urban elite and were very expensive and were viewed as very white collar and sophisticated, but when world war two came around everything began to change. Troops were given cigarettes for free, starting a whole new generation out to look for the best smoke. The real driving force however has been the relentless and brilliant advertising done by the tobacco industry. The most famous and successful of ads was Philip Morris’s Marlboro man advertising with the catch phrase “Come to where the flavor is come, to Marlboro country.” Marlboro was conceived as a cigarette marketed towards woman because it was one of the first brands to have a filter on it, so after seeing sales continuously drop a change was done. Marlboro began to reshape itself as a symbol of masculinity. The cowboys ride into the distance as they light up a cigarette or the ladies watch in awe as a “Marlboro man” lights up a smoke.
So now that we’ve established the masculinity part to smoking what about people’s health? People may do stupid things to look cool but not in the same numbers as smoking. It would seem the remedy has been generational smoking and arrogance. The cigarette companies rely on people to do their advertising for them these days. A parent lights up a cigarette in front of her kid who then picks up the habit and starts smoking in front of a friend and so on and so forth. Everybody who starts smoking goes in with the mentality that “I’ll be fine, I’m going to quit really soon.” Well the reality is that it’s quite the roll of the dice, there are no guarantees, and the only guarantee out there is the likely hood of your survival drops every day.
Now the reason that I have been able to talk so much smack about smokers and the reason that they pick up the habit and how their suckers is because I am among the crowd myself. Now maybe it’s because I’m a big fan of old movies and such but it seems to go a little bit farther than that. I think that I smoke for the same reason everyone else does, it fits my role. Cigarette smoking has become a tool that I can use to project my image without ever having to say anything or even look at anybody. In a lot of ways the cigarette speaks for itself. If mixed with the proper attire and/or other physical traits you can tell someone more about yourself then you probably could in a simple introductory conversation.
One final thing that comes to mind with smoking is the actual physical act of smoking. I think simply that people don’t want to appear as though they have nothing to do. Smoking can appear as a buffer to loneliness. If someone’s outside by themselves smoking then the smoker is probably thinking that as long as I’m out here with a cigarette it appears as though I have something to do and I’m important. Also I think that the look of cigarette smoke has been planted in our brain as cool and even if you’re against smoking you can appreciate the mysterious look of billowing cigarette smoke.
To try and wrap this all up I think that we as a people have been not only feeding into this deadly habit but fueling it with our desires to reach the unreachable dream of euphoric cool-ness. Smoking went from Native Americans to the intelligencia through a transformation to something that crosses racial, economic and social boundaries. The only thing that John Wayne and Jerry Garcia had in common? A relentless smoking habit.

HW 36

Quinn,
THESIS: We use cool as a way to sheild our own personal beliefs and create a barrier between ourselves and the outside world.
Main Idea: Cool is a de-facto anti-depressent and a to protect ourselves from getting hurt.
Big Insight: The personal angle. Showing how you have incorporated these theories in your own life and the affect it's had.

Everybody knows the story about the big physical bully. He likes to make a punk out of all the younger kids who can't defend themselves but when finally chalenged by someone who is of equal strength the bully himself ends u a punk, and so it goes. I think that story ties in directly to what your trying to say. The bully uses his cool role (the tough bully) to sheild his own insecurities and feelings. A question that comes to mind; are those "true" feelings actually true or just a deaper complexity of the role of the bully?

1. A more direct and repeated thesis.
2. Some more questions.
3. Quotes and some more non-personal examples.

Great job
Will

HW 36

Sam,
THESIS: Through studying the history and motives of cool we can live a fuller and more meaningfull life.
Main Idea: We are all built off of somebody else and we can only improve by accepting that.
Big Insight: Your main idea is proven by looking through a historical lense and analyzing how cool has been applied in previous generations. (the Shakespere reference)

The scarry part of knowing that we are all built off of somebody else is that most people might believe it. If people are suddenly hit with the realization that they poses no originality then they might actually try to change our world. The kind of change that brings about no true results and lots of Jesus freaks. For instance lets take your average run of the mill Williamsburg artist. Their liveley-hood is based off the idea that they are original, the geniuine article. We all rest on a fine line between mental stability and reality. If we have our vision of reality destorted at such an advanced age then where does that leave everybody? It remindes me of The Matrix when Morphious says "we never free a mind after so long" (paraphrase). After something is rooted in there it's a one way train.


1. More connections to your own life
2. Quotes from authors, scholars, media ect..
3. What is the origin of cool and where did this "collage" begin?

Very Rough Draft

Humphrey Bogart stands out in the rain and lights a cigarette as he delivers one of the most iconic lines in cinema history, "we'll always have Paris". John Wayne and his men battle through Iwo Jima and raise the flag before turning to his men and saying "how about a cigarette". Whether your saying goodbye to your "sweetheart" in Morocco or winning a heroic battle in world war two cigarettes are always there as an instrument of cool. Cigarette companies have been able to accomplish something incredible; make cigarettes rebellious while at the same time not taboo. Think of one thing that John Wayne and Barack Obama have in common? Cigarette smoking. Cigarettes may be the only thing that's truly bipartisan. Smoking is not only percieved as something that looks cool it's smoething that's excepted by general society. So my point is smoking is a way for people to be rebellious and be conformists at the same time.
Everybody knows that smoking is bad for you. Anybody who started smoking after the 1950's knew that there was a great potential for death. But knowing that why do people continue to smoke? It's also well established that we are a sucker for good advertising but smoking goes beyond good advertising. Tabacco advertising has been banned from television and radio since 1972. Advertising on billboards has been banned since 1999, but people continue to pick up the habbit everyday. If there ever was an example of how desperate people are to be cool it's smoking. Flipping through the gossip pages your bound to find a picture of Leonardo Dicaprio or Keither Sutherland having a smoke, but that still leaves much to be desired. Your average fourteen year old smoker probably wouldn't even know who the marlboro man is. So it must be a combination of things, the masculinity that comes with smoking, the image, and finally our own emptiness. Cigarettes can appear as a buffer for someones depression and anger towards the world. A true symbol of "f#%* it".
When talking to a smoker seldom do they examine their own reasoning for smoking. Most people give a response like "Well I started when I was a dumb kid and now I'm addicted". These people give these responses because their scared to face the fact that they were suckered in by philip morris and television and now they can't get out. It's quite dpersing to think that your sub-conscious is willing to do engage in a deadly foul smelling activity that's detremental to your health for apearences sake. But that's the world we live in. Even in a world where death is the scarriest thing on are minds, cool still takes precedent. What has been carved into our minds is that looking sharp for a corporation after your money is worth dying for. But hey come to where the flavor is.
In conclusion I knowledge that the rate of smoking has gone down accross the western world. But I'm not convinced it's because of our health. I think it's a combination of less exposure to cigarette advertising and rising cigarette prices. Which I think backs up my claim. We were not smart enough to take the health risks into account and make a desicion for ourselves. It took the government sheilding us and teling us to use something else that will kill us for people to back up. Cool is most certainly the priority of our lives, and we live accordingly. No matter who it is there will always be someone out there to guide us into the next trend, and we will always be there to give our lives for that trend.

NOT FOR HOMEWORK

Sarah, I think that you have a really good topic to be writing about and you seem to have a grasp on the material. You gave great examples about facebook and 9th grade and you were able to use yourself well throughout the paper. My main problem was that your paper was very broad at parts and Im not sure what it is your trying to prove. From conversations that we've had about your paper I know what your getting at but I just think that you should try to articulate that a little more clearly. I also liked how you talked about tattos and talked about Miley Cyrus and gaver your oppinion on her tatto choice.
One thing that you did that I thought was particularly interesting was comparing our distractions with jenga and the common ups and downs that go on, I likened it somewhat to a donkey with a carrot in front of him. Basically to wrap this all up I think that you have something really great to write about and my only suggestion would be to try and piece together all of your examples with something out of your own life. I think that would really make your paper engaging.

Good Luck

HW 33

Basically for my paper i want to examine how we use recreational drugs to fuel our image of cool. Mostly I want to examine cigarette and alcohol use. For this paper I want to use examples like Humphrey Bogart, and John Wayne. Specifically how'd they use cigarettes as a tool for projecting their image and how does that translate into modern society.
Argument 1: The effectiveness of tobacco advertising particularly from the 1940s through the 1990s. How did this advertising work so well despite the onslaught of health warnings and studies? What have these advertisements done to make ourselves feel more comfortable with using a product that will obviously cause demonstrative health problems.
Argument 2: The use of movies as a merchant of tobacco.
Argument 3: Used as an object of insecurities

HW 34

Despite all of the certain items one might own physical traits are what can really matter in determining someones path and how their viewed as cool. They say that people make a judgement about someone right after seeing them. Obviously that's true. So looking at someones hair before they can get out one syllable is a pretty good way of judgeing someone. If you work on wall street and you walk into an interview with long hair that goes down to your back, then well lets face it, your fucked. On the other hand if your a ski bum and your looking for a job at a head shop and you walk in with a neatly cut short hair dou with a perfect hair line then, your fucked there too. Something that gets even more judgement is race. A lot of white liberals try to be cool and say that they don't judge somebody based on their race or religion or whatever. But their more full of shit then anybody. Generally what they end up doing is the opposite. They try to raise them selves up by measuring people on a different playing field. So therefore someone ends up at a disadvantage.
In my oppinion racism dates back to a tribal period. People have a natural instict to be around people that are similar to them. For example in our school which almost knowbody would consider racist, is almost fully segregated when it comes to seating in class, lunch and the people that hang out after school. I dont believe that people conciously want things to work out that way but in turn they do. Its also fucked up that when anybody mentions how thats the case their just told to shut or accused of being racist in their own right. Its nothing more then an over politically correct bullshit world to protect everybodies feelings. And how does this relate to cool? These facts and surroundings drive into our subcouncious and gives us grim realities about our own future which therefore shapes our cool path. Your young and black live in a bad neighborhood and see a white person of equal age and inteligence get flooded with recourses. It must be frustrating beyond words; so then what happens, the rebellious attitude sinks in it most likely di in previous generations and the cycle continues.
In counclusion it is unfortunate how are physical attributes can make or break us, but it seems just a fact of life. There may come a point in time when either the string is broken or it just reversus but that seems to be something of the distant future. So for those of us just left in the shit, the only remedy is to work with what we have and try to prove those who stand in the way wrong.

HW 32

Tattoos are something that embodies the inner rebel. For those of us who have spent most of their life in the twenty first century the idea of getting a tattoo runs through just about everybodies mind at one point or another. Even now where tattoos on your arm or back aren't really considered tabbo in many ways they still represent a certain element of non-conformity and rebellion against society. Tattoos are still able to embody that image because of it's relation with crime, drugs, and rock n' roll. For this reason I think that tattoos will always represent rebellion. For many people tattoos also represent a group feeling particularly among men. Even non criminal enterprises such as bands, social club's, ect. School Of The Future principal John Fanning spoke about how tattoos can represent a feeling of belonging for someone who comes from a background where conformity is the requirement and anything short of that is not tolerated.
Throughout history tattoos have played a crucial role in tribal society. One of the main reasons I think that tattoos have kept their rebellious status is because of their relationship with native peoples who were considred taboo for much of history. The traditions that these tribes carried out are so incredibly different from western society at any point in history that conforming with the tribal side is a rebellious act. So basically point being that tattos have been given the status of rebellion because of a long an storied history.

HW 31

Part A: For this assignment I decided to ask someone from outside the school. Someone who was totally unaware of what were studying and has no knowledge that I intend to put their answers on the internet. Whenever I saw this person I always noticed that he kept his head down. Rarely acknowledged other peoples existance. Also I noticed that he never seemed to get excited or anxious. So I then asked him a general question, do you think people enact certain body trends to improve their social status? He agreed and went on a bit of a tangent about how a lot of the people in his neighborhood walk a certain way to try and seem like a badass. So then I decided to ask a more personal question. Do think living in that environment has passed on some of those traits? "Nah, fuck that. That's od herb status." So since he became comfortable with the idea about talking about himself I wanted to finish with a more personal question. What do you think are some of the things you do to project your own image. "How would I know, I just do what I do, I mean basically it comes natural to me I just do what I feel so its like whatever I geuss". Out of asking these questions I came to the conclusion that even though people are totally aware of how other people try to project themeselves that when it comes to talking about their own projection they're hesistant to examine themeselves and they know that their doing a performance of somekind but they like to phrase it as a natural projection. In other words a performance that's a natural gift rather then a well thought out and rehersed drama.


Part B: For myself I think that there are three different personas that I take on. The first that comes to mind would be "the ball buster". I have a habbit of picking up on peoples weaknesses and exploiting them for comic effect. However I don't think that I do it in a mean way or a nasty way. Secondly I think that I'm kind of a fan of 1950's culture so a lot of things like the hair and sometimes my overall attitude is a bit of a representation of that. Finally I also think that I try and act like a smart ass sometimes. As long as I can remember I've also thought that proving somebody wrong who constantly thinks their right is an extremely satisfying feeling. A lot of these attitudes come from being an only child. I think that growing up around adults all the time gives you a different kind of competetivenes. Also my parents are both actors and big fans of old movies. So for a long time and maybe still to this day I've tried to be like a John Wayne or Clint Eastwood.

HW 30 How does cool relate to our attempt to live in relation to this emptiness?

Everybody has moments of feeling empty lonely or just overall pissed. Weather it be the nerd in the back of the class or the jock who gets all the girls, knowbody is truly happy and content all the time; and anybody who says they are is the most insecure lonely bastard of the bunch. Cool directly relates to our feeling of emptiness because cool has been defined as the perfect element. In other words cool takes on more then just being poular or keeping up with the times its about being confident and seeming that in no way are you lonely or brought down, but always seeming human at the same time.
Something else to consider is what are the root causes of our emptiness. I would argue that cool is one of the main problems. Because we give ourselves these imposible goals of becoming perfect happy people who read a script and do everything by the book even if its called being a rebel. I think that we either conciously or sub-consciously know that these goals are impossible to reach but that clime towards the top of the peakless mountain is one that brings on emptiness and clouds are vision of reality. But on the other hand, who the fuck needs reality? My best geuss at total reality would be a constant reminder that your life doesnt matter, there aren't any real rewards and we die and knowbody gives a shit. So my arguement is that cool is just a name we've given to our attempts at not being empty even though in one way or another we've been filling the role of "cool" forever. Furthermore if we didn't have that role not only would we be empty we'd be barbaric. Because the realist things in our lives are the most tragic. Or thats at least how we've been raised to think of it.
In conclusion my main point is the connection between emptiness and cool is very strong. Because in a lot of ways cool is our attemt to hide reality. Create obstacles chalenges, things that aren't important as far as nature is concerned but important to us because our complex brains can function in a positive way.