Unless things change drastically in the United States, no one will ever be able to convince me that people cannot move up (or down) when it comes to classes. The New York Times graphic and The Great Gatsby both actually show exactly how this is possible.
For one thing, the graphic does a great job of showing exactly how the US feels about the topic, and for the most part, people tend to believe that anything is possible. The polls, the facts, the charts, everything, all point to the idea that people can move up, or even move down. According to some polls, in 1983 just less than 60% thought that it is possible to start out poor, work hard, and become rich. Now, that number has increased to 80%. That shows that people really do believe in the idea. There is also a poll that says the 84% favor programs to help those who come from low-income backgrounds. I just have a hard time believing that with the support of the idea, that no one can actually do it. There is also record of people moving from lower classes to the upper middle or to even the top fifth, especially in today's world (not so much in 1988).
The Great Gatsby also confirmed my thoughts on this. Here we have this character named Jay Gatsby that came from a pretty low income family. His parents didn't have much success, but Gatsby aimed for a different kind of life. He worked his butt off and eventually became pretty rich. Throughout the book we can see how he hard he worked and how it paid off. Gatsby's father, Mr. Gatz, ends up telling Nick, "'Jimmy was bound to get ahead. He always had some resolves like this or something. Do you notice what he's got about improving his mind? He was always great for that...'" He says this right after we look at the type of schedule that Gatsby had made for himself when he was younger, and that boy worked hard. This all goes to prove that with hard work, anyone can move up or down in class.
Based on the fact that so many people believe it can happen, the facts behind the idea, and the example in The Great Gatsby, I find it really hard to believe that people cannot move up or down in classes. I guess it's just kind of the idea that anything can happen, especially if people work hard at life. Hard work (or even no work) will show results.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Robo-Readers
It’s interesting to see technology taking such a big leap into different parts of life. It can help a lot in education, but there are just some parts of schooling that robots and high-technology machines should stay away from. For example, grading essays and papers is one thing that actual humans should have a better grasp on than a machine.
The depth of an argument or the point of a paper is definitely a key part to the writing process and the final outcome; it would be a shame if people started to lose that ability to form an actually well written, strong piece of writing. Les Perelman, a director of writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has done a lot of research on the automated reader, and it seems as if the automated reader can be beat. Even in such a way that “He tells students not to waste time workrying about whether their facts are accurate, since pretty much any fact will do as long as it is incorporated into a well-structured sentence” (Source B). Some of the key things to use when writing for the automated reader are long sentences, long paragraphs, long paper (in general), no sentences beginning with ‘or’ or ‘and,’ connectors (‘however,’ ‘moreover’), and big words. In reality, the substance of the argument has no effect on the grading at all.
This is even more shown by the company’s website itself. ETS explains the features included in the e-rater scoring engine, and it appears that the one criterion on content is “content analysis based on vocabulary measures.” That most likely means that if a person uses big words rather than small words, the automated reader will see the paper as being better argued. This is another place where Perelman comes in to actually sum it all together in one sentence, “The substance of an argument doesn’t matter, he said, as long as it looks to the computer as if it’s nicely argued.” It’s pretty clear the the ETS website is focusing on showing that the scores are based on important things like “proportion of grammar errors,” “proportion of usage errors,” proportion of mechanics errors,” and others. Some of these features are probably extremely helpful, but until the machine has the ability to effectively look at an argument, there is no way that a human should just be pushed aside.
There are some arguments that do actually hint that a human may not be the best option when grading papers, but for the most part, the arguments aren’t very strong. In Torie Bosch’s writing on the “Robo-Readers,” she brings up a point by some person named “Shermis” (which questions the credibility already because no one knows who “Shermis” is), that is actually decent. Shermis said that automated essay scoring is “nonjudgmental,” and “it can be done 24/7. If students finish an essay at 10 p.m., they get feedback at 10:01.” This argument could be stronger though, and it can be argued that the importance of looking at the actual meaning of the essay is more important than receiving the scores sooner.
Unless there are some more advancements made, machines should probably leave essay scoring in the hands of humans. Maybe a machine could focus on the grammar and spelling, but a human should be there to actually interpret the text as well. Technology is really important in every day life, but sometimes it still needs to advance for certain steps to be taken.
The depth of an argument or the point of a paper is definitely a key part to the writing process and the final outcome; it would be a shame if people started to lose that ability to form an actually well written, strong piece of writing. Les Perelman, a director of writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has done a lot of research on the automated reader, and it seems as if the automated reader can be beat. Even in such a way that “He tells students not to waste time workrying about whether their facts are accurate, since pretty much any fact will do as long as it is incorporated into a well-structured sentence” (Source B). Some of the key things to use when writing for the automated reader are long sentences, long paragraphs, long paper (in general), no sentences beginning with ‘or’ or ‘and,’ connectors (‘however,’ ‘moreover’), and big words. In reality, the substance of the argument has no effect on the grading at all.
This is even more shown by the company’s website itself. ETS explains the features included in the e-rater scoring engine, and it appears that the one criterion on content is “content analysis based on vocabulary measures.” That most likely means that if a person uses big words rather than small words, the automated reader will see the paper as being better argued. This is another place where Perelman comes in to actually sum it all together in one sentence, “The substance of an argument doesn’t matter, he said, as long as it looks to the computer as if it’s nicely argued.” It’s pretty clear the the ETS website is focusing on showing that the scores are based on important things like “proportion of grammar errors,” “proportion of usage errors,” proportion of mechanics errors,” and others. Some of these features are probably extremely helpful, but until the machine has the ability to effectively look at an argument, there is no way that a human should just be pushed aside.
There are some arguments that do actually hint that a human may not be the best option when grading papers, but for the most part, the arguments aren’t very strong. In Torie Bosch’s writing on the “Robo-Readers,” she brings up a point by some person named “Shermis” (which questions the credibility already because no one knows who “Shermis” is), that is actually decent. Shermis said that automated essay scoring is “nonjudgmental,” and “it can be done 24/7. If students finish an essay at 10 p.m., they get feedback at 10:01.” This argument could be stronger though, and it can be argued that the importance of looking at the actual meaning of the essay is more important than receiving the scores sooner.
Unless there are some more advancements made, machines should probably leave essay scoring in the hands of humans. Maybe a machine could focus on the grammar and spelling, but a human should be there to actually interpret the text as well. Technology is really important in every day life, but sometimes it still needs to advance for certain steps to be taken.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
map time!!
http://www.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1671s2.jpg
This map appears to be a pretty ordinary map. First off, I found it interesting how many names were on this map. It just seems like everything is so in depth, and you can’t even read the names. Also, to me, Europe seems pretty close to the Americas. And to the west of the Americas, there really isn’t much at all. I don’t know for sure what it could mean, and maybe I am missing something entirely (I wouldn't be surprised), but it just seems kind of weird for some reason. I think that maybe it just deals with not everything having been discovered yet; this is how the world seemed to people back then because they didn’t know how far the world stretched.
Other than that, the main thing that I noticed though was the picture at the bottom. In Babb’s passage, “In this instance, conceiving of Native Americans as savage allowed English Puritans to formulate a group identity in which they were ‘not-savage,’” it points out how Englishmen would probably look at the map. The picture shows these “savages” or Native Americans with an emphasis on their gold. To Europeans, they would look at this picture and see these people that they hear so often about and see the one thing that everyone wants: gold. Especially given that they would probably hope that their superiority would allow them to have that gold. The purpose of this map could most definitely be to attract people with the idea of fame and fortune.
This map appears to be a pretty ordinary map. First off, I found it interesting how many names were on this map. It just seems like everything is so in depth, and you can’t even read the names. Also, to me, Europe seems pretty close to the Americas. And to the west of the Americas, there really isn’t much at all. I don’t know for sure what it could mean, and maybe I am missing something entirely (I wouldn't be surprised), but it just seems kind of weird for some reason. I think that maybe it just deals with not everything having been discovered yet; this is how the world seemed to people back then because they didn’t know how far the world stretched.
Other than that, the main thing that I noticed though was the picture at the bottom. In Babb’s passage, “In this instance, conceiving of Native Americans as savage allowed English Puritans to formulate a group identity in which they were ‘not-savage,’” it points out how Englishmen would probably look at the map. The picture shows these “savages” or Native Americans with an emphasis on their gold. To Europeans, they would look at this picture and see these people that they hear so often about and see the one thing that everyone wants: gold. Especially given that they would probably hope that their superiority would allow them to have that gold. The purpose of this map could most definitely be to attract people with the idea of fame and fortune.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Occupy the Classroom Op-ed
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/occupy-the-classroom.html?src=mv&ref=general
This persuasive op-ed piece is about the gap between the rich and the poor. In this article, Nicholas D. Kristof looks at how early education affects a person and often times decides whether or not he or she will be rich or poor. He suggests that even before kindergarten there starts to be a gap in performance between the rich and poor.
It was a pretty persuasive piece because it provided facts and quotes that could provide an understanding of the importance of early education. He touched on important ideas like success, inequality, and money. Everything was believable and came off as very logical as well. I thought that it was very persuasive because it informed and persuaded in a way that wasn't condescending at all.
I liked the sprinkles of facts and quotes because they made the point he was making very believable. Also, the way he wrote the article and his sentences were easy to understand and worded in a way that kept me reading.
This persuasive op-ed piece is about the gap between the rich and the poor. In this article, Nicholas D. Kristof looks at how early education affects a person and often times decides whether or not he or she will be rich or poor. He suggests that even before kindergarten there starts to be a gap in performance between the rich and poor.
It was a pretty persuasive piece because it provided facts and quotes that could provide an understanding of the importance of early education. He touched on important ideas like success, inequality, and money. Everything was believable and came off as very logical as well. I thought that it was very persuasive because it informed and persuaded in a way that wasn't condescending at all.
I liked the sprinkles of facts and quotes because they made the point he was making very believable. Also, the way he wrote the article and his sentences were easy to understand and worded in a way that kept me reading.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Deaffff vs hearingggg
I thought the documentary Sound and Fury was really interesting. I think it's gotta be hard for parents to make the decision on whether or not to have their child get the cochlear implant to allow for them to be able to hear. Especially when the culture of deaf people is being thought about.
I think that if I had a deaf child, or any child, I would want them to have the best opportunities that they could have. That would mean that I would definitely consider and most likely follow through with the decision to get them the cochlear implant. I understand why deaf people are extremely hesitant. They don't want their culture to disappear; they don't want deaf people to become robots. But...I can't help but think that the best opportunities would be for a child who can hear. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but I think it is.
Communication is a huge part of life. Yes, there is sign language, but the majority of people rely on voice or verbal ways of talking. I don't think that that makes deaf people stupid or anything like that. It just means that they often times don't get to move as far in life as if they had been hearing (I don't like it, but I think it's true).
The thing I didn't like about Heather's dad's argument was that it wasn't very strong. He kept talking about culture, and I completely understood what he was trying to say. But then he would bring up these points about his life. Like how he probably won't be able to move much further up in his job, and that being deaf does make things complicated. Thinking about the things that he said like those and the comments from his mom (she hated seeing what he went through as a deaf child), I just don't understand. It was like he was saying that he had a lot to go through and that it's tough, but his daughter should just do it that way too because it is possible to live. Why not just make things easier and allow for more opportunities?
I also don't really agree with the parents decision to move to the deaf community that would understand them more. I get why they thought to do it, but I almost think that they are fencing Heather in. What is she going to do when she travels or moves away?
I can think of one thing that might hold me back, but something tells me that I wouldn't have to worry much about it because of the technology and advancements today. I just wonder how safe the procedure to get the implant is.
Overall it is the parents decision, and I they are going to choose what they choose. We can't really change that, but I think if I was deciding, I would let my child have the opportunity to hear.
I think that if I had a deaf child, or any child, I would want them to have the best opportunities that they could have. That would mean that I would definitely consider and most likely follow through with the decision to get them the cochlear implant. I understand why deaf people are extremely hesitant. They don't want their culture to disappear; they don't want deaf people to become robots. But...I can't help but think that the best opportunities would be for a child who can hear. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but I think it is.
Communication is a huge part of life. Yes, there is sign language, but the majority of people rely on voice or verbal ways of talking. I don't think that that makes deaf people stupid or anything like that. It just means that they often times don't get to move as far in life as if they had been hearing (I don't like it, but I think it's true).
The thing I didn't like about Heather's dad's argument was that it wasn't very strong. He kept talking about culture, and I completely understood what he was trying to say. But then he would bring up these points about his life. Like how he probably won't be able to move much further up in his job, and that being deaf does make things complicated. Thinking about the things that he said like those and the comments from his mom (she hated seeing what he went through as a deaf child), I just don't understand. It was like he was saying that he had a lot to go through and that it's tough, but his daughter should just do it that way too because it is possible to live. Why not just make things easier and allow for more opportunities?
I also don't really agree with the parents decision to move to the deaf community that would understand them more. I get why they thought to do it, but I almost think that they are fencing Heather in. What is she going to do when she travels or moves away?
I can think of one thing that might hold me back, but something tells me that I wouldn't have to worry much about it because of the technology and advancements today. I just wonder how safe the procedure to get the implant is.
Overall it is the parents decision, and I they are going to choose what they choose. We can't really change that, but I think if I was deciding, I would let my child have the opportunity to hear.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
spiders :(
I am not a fan of spiders...they are scary! I guess I'm not always afraid. It's when I don't expect them to be where they are, and they start crawling all over the place, and I can't keep track of where they are. I especially don't like when they are in my room, on me (!!!!), or on my stuff. It freaks me out!!
I went camping this summer and there were spiders everywhere! I had them climbing on my sleeping bag, tent, leg, everywhere! One time I swear there was one on my face...
I used to think that spiders were okay...but now...not so much. Thank goodness for my family members that aren't afraid to kill spiders or take them outside! :)
I went camping this summer and there were spiders everywhere! I had them climbing on my sleeping bag, tent, leg, everywhere! One time I swear there was one on my face...
I used to think that spiders were okay...but now...not so much. Thank goodness for my family members that aren't afraid to kill spiders or take them outside! :)
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Songggggg
I guess the song that I am choosing may not work for everybody, but for me it seems right. Where Corn Don't Grow by Travis Tritt is a pretty good song about how one young man who grew up on a farm thought that living in the city would be better and not have as many hard times. When he asks his dad, "Daddy, there's a lot that I don't know, but don't you ever dream about a life where corn don't grow?" His dad goes on to answer about how things may seem slow, but that "hard times are real." He explains to him, and the son later finds out, that there are "dusty fields" and "weeds" "no matter where you go."
I don't live on a farm, but I think that this song can speak to pretty much anyone. There are a lot of times when I expect that a certain place or situation would be better for me, and I often find out that there are almost always problems or hard times that I need to deal with. Sometimes it's easier to look at where you are and think that something else would be better and easier. The truth is though...the grass isn't always greener on the other side. And I think that a lot of people these days are looking at the other side (whatever that side is..in pretty any situation) wishing they were there, when in reality it may not be as pretty as they hoped.
I don't live on a farm, but I think that this song can speak to pretty much anyone. There are a lot of times when I expect that a certain place or situation would be better for me, and I often find out that there are almost always problems or hard times that I need to deal with. Sometimes it's easier to look at where you are and think that something else would be better and easier. The truth is though...the grass isn't always greener on the other side. And I think that a lot of people these days are looking at the other side (whatever that side is..in pretty any situation) wishing they were there, when in reality it may not be as pretty as they hoped.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)