The No Child Left Behind standard testing has been a subject of casual debate for awhile now, but standardized testing like the HSPE and the now-abolished WASL has sort of been something that basically all middle school and high school students have accepted as a part of their school year. I've never really thought much of standardized testing until I read an interesting section of Freakonomics (and its sequel, Superfreakonomics) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, a book about all the quirky statistics of the world that we never thought about. The section that I'm referring to is the part about cheating on these same tests that I'm referring to now, but we're going to file this particular thought away for a bit later on.
What brought me back to Freakonomics was this article from CNN, where it seems people are starting to catch on to something that Levitt and Dubner discovered 7 years ago. Link!
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/25/report-test-cheating-may-be-widespread/?hpt=hp_bn1
In essence, teachers falsify tests in order to make it look like they can do their job, and administration lets it happen because their salaries and school district funding is tied to those test scores, and so everyone except for the students win in a situation where the test scores look better then they actually are. The article also brings up the "teaching to the test" problem that has risen from standardized testing, which involves specific learning for the student in a way to get the best test score. With me being in a position to appreciate how absolutely idiotic that this is, being a high school student and all, I decided to throw some commentary.
1) Why is attention being brought to this now? Freakonomics backed their conclusions about cheating teachers with solid statistics and analysis of those statistics, and no one decided to address that problem? It seems to me that administration isn't doing their job when they're more worried about rising test scores than actual learning, and yes I realize their salary is as important to them as student welfare (let's be honest, far more important.) but hey! Its not like we don't have a way to make these problems known.
2) A quick reread of relevant chapters in Freakonomics reminded me that the repercussions of this cheating is far more detrimental to the students than I think most people realize. The public school system has ended up using standardized testing as a baseline for student learning, as well as a measure of student learning. So when these records of tests are forged, the student takes a double-whammie of sorts. Not only is he/she put into a class that they probably shouldn't be in, thus putting their academics further down the toilet, but additional help is provided to the student simply because no one (except for maybe the crooked teacher involved, but I think we've already decided he/she's not all that responsible.) really knows that said student needs any extra help. Since this starts fairly early on, we're not just talking about a couple of years of setback here. We're talking about serious problems late into high school, possibly even chasing into college where the student struggles because no one took the time to help them understand fundamental concepts.
3) This is my last point, I promise. Sometime last week (you expect me to remember exactly when? Please.) I was called into the office by administration to question my decision not to take the AP Computer Science AP test. Now, normally I wouldn't really be bothered by this, but the person asking me said something that I thought represented a type of thinking that just shouldn't exist in public education. What she said was, "You know Luke, it would be good for Liberty if we were to have 100% of our APCS students taking that AP test". To me, this says that the number, the statistic, the benchmark of students taking the test matters much more to the school than actual scores. And this isn't just about AP testing, I think this same thinking shows up with standard testing where if the student passes, great job! We've done it, this student is fine and ready to graduate. But really, shouldn't education be focused much less on the numbers and much more on the student? I accept that really the only way to measure learning in a student is by numbers, but why not focus on the student and then take the numbers for whatever they mean. Yes, I'm being confusing but I don't really have another way to say it. Start focusing on the student learning, and the numbers and the learning both improve. Focus on the numbers like we are, the numbers improve but does the actual learning? That's a good question, one that I don't think even should be asked in a public school setting.
Its weird that I spend so much time critiquing a system that I spend so much time defending on the internet...
Ah well.
I'm a true wizard on the inside
Monday, March 26, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Thoughts On Piracy
Anyone who knows me will tell you that 1) Luke hates piracy. 2) Luke hates any sort of attempted justification of piracy. 3) Luke is willing to beat his dead horse of anti-piracy arguments any time you want. Just ask, and Luke will giveth his speech (rant) liberally to all man, and upbraideth not. And so when I found an interesting titled blog on a gaming news site I frequent, 1Up.com, I saw an opportunity to begin ranting about piracy. Link to said blog:
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9097566
To save you some trouble, the blog is titled, "When is Piracy OK?". Obviously the answer from me is going to be never, but the guy brings up some points. After identifying himself as an anti-piracy man, he says that he thinks piracy is acceptable when you can't find the game any more in stores, and the company won't make money off of it if you buy a used copy off of eBay or Amazon, or whatever other shopping site you want to use. Alright, that makes sense, I can buy that. In fact, I've given that some thought as well. The conclusion I've come to? That isn't piracy. At the point where the company is no longer getting funds for the sale of a game, and the game isn't available anywhere besides for collectors, downloading a copy to play on an emulator isn't piracy to me, or any other rational person. But if you want to call it piracy, fine. I can agree with this.
So far so good on this guys thoughts, but he soon spirals down into the pit that many a person has found themselves going into. A major problem with piracy is the addictive nature of well, getting free stuff. I know so many people that haven't bought an album for as long as they can remember, and they balk at the idea of anyone paying actual money for music. As a result, people who want to dabble in piracy quickly find themselves in the situation where spending money on things seems silly in comparison to simply taking what you want. Anyway, back to the blog. The guy continues on for a bit, but then says something that's just weird; "Finally I would like to say that I have no issue with people downloading pirated versions of Street Fighter X Tekken." What? Are you serious? Claim to be anti-piracy and then whip out a statement like that? Capcom must be killing puppies and using baby seal skins as covers for him to so quickly renounce his such deeply-vested beliefs. In reality, Capcom is trying to make some extra money off of Street Fighter X Tekken and employing the pretty unpopular concept of money-unlock-able content. And thus we see, the slippery slope.
This is the same slippery slope that led to rampant piracy in the first place. It starts out roses and daisies, rational reasons, and then all of a sudden it all comes down to the fact you can have something for free with little to no consequence. Literally his way of protesting this "unfair" scheme of Capcom's to make more money is to not buy the game, but he still wants to play it. So he justified in his own mind that "he wasn't going to buy the game anyway." Therein lies the reason I hate justification of piracy. Compromise with things like this quickly leads to complete surrender, which is something that I refuse to be a part of. I don't formulate this argument very well, but my question becomes why do I need a reason to argue against piracy? Its illegal, its stealing, its everything bad about consumerism in this world. When did we get to a point where everything I just listed is OK, even accepted?
Since I've been repeating myself for awhile, I'm just going to leave anyone besides Mr. Level who reads this (he can listen to it too if he wants.) with this; don't start downloading things and becoming a part of piracy. I don't care what reasons you have, don't start. You will never stop. Piracy is stealing, despite what the internet has to say (I can elaborate on this if you want, but its better not to be a complete idiot and say that piracy isn't stealing.) and it does devastate sales and potential sales of gaming companies and musical artists that have put time and money into something they love. Don't fall down the slippery slope, and stop pirating things that we aren't entitled to. You'll appreciate what you have so much more if you work for it, and buy it yourself.
/end rant
Getting the blog post done early this week, woooo!
MountainCrewOfTwo
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9097566
To save you some trouble, the blog is titled, "When is Piracy OK?". Obviously the answer from me is going to be never, but the guy brings up some points. After identifying himself as an anti-piracy man, he says that he thinks piracy is acceptable when you can't find the game any more in stores, and the company won't make money off of it if you buy a used copy off of eBay or Amazon, or whatever other shopping site you want to use. Alright, that makes sense, I can buy that. In fact, I've given that some thought as well. The conclusion I've come to? That isn't piracy. At the point where the company is no longer getting funds for the sale of a game, and the game isn't available anywhere besides for collectors, downloading a copy to play on an emulator isn't piracy to me, or any other rational person. But if you want to call it piracy, fine. I can agree with this.
So far so good on this guys thoughts, but he soon spirals down into the pit that many a person has found themselves going into. A major problem with piracy is the addictive nature of well, getting free stuff. I know so many people that haven't bought an album for as long as they can remember, and they balk at the idea of anyone paying actual money for music. As a result, people who want to dabble in piracy quickly find themselves in the situation where spending money on things seems silly in comparison to simply taking what you want. Anyway, back to the blog. The guy continues on for a bit, but then says something that's just weird; "Finally I would like to say that I have no issue with people downloading pirated versions of Street Fighter X Tekken." What? Are you serious? Claim to be anti-piracy and then whip out a statement like that? Capcom must be killing puppies and using baby seal skins as covers for him to so quickly renounce his such deeply-vested beliefs. In reality, Capcom is trying to make some extra money off of Street Fighter X Tekken and employing the pretty unpopular concept of money-unlock-able content. And thus we see, the slippery slope.
This is the same slippery slope that led to rampant piracy in the first place. It starts out roses and daisies, rational reasons, and then all of a sudden it all comes down to the fact you can have something for free with little to no consequence. Literally his way of protesting this "unfair" scheme of Capcom's to make more money is to not buy the game, but he still wants to play it. So he justified in his own mind that "he wasn't going to buy the game anyway." Therein lies the reason I hate justification of piracy. Compromise with things like this quickly leads to complete surrender, which is something that I refuse to be a part of. I don't formulate this argument very well, but my question becomes why do I need a reason to argue against piracy? Its illegal, its stealing, its everything bad about consumerism in this world. When did we get to a point where everything I just listed is OK, even accepted?
Since I've been repeating myself for awhile, I'm just going to leave anyone besides Mr. Level who reads this (he can listen to it too if he wants.) with this; don't start downloading things and becoming a part of piracy. I don't care what reasons you have, don't start. You will never stop. Piracy is stealing, despite what the internet has to say (I can elaborate on this if you want, but its better not to be a complete idiot and say that piracy isn't stealing.) and it does devastate sales and potential sales of gaming companies and musical artists that have put time and money into something they love. Don't fall down the slippery slope, and stop pirating things that we aren't entitled to. You'll appreciate what you have so much more if you work for it, and buy it yourself.
/end rant
Getting the blog post done early this week, woooo!
MountainCrewOfTwo
Friday, March 16, 2012
Anonymous at South By Southwest
South by Southwest is a convention about internet culture and stuff similar to that. I'd been paying attention to SXSW, and through that found this article which I found incredibly interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/13/tech/web/anonymous-sxsw/index.html
For a long time groups like Anonymous and the splinter group Lulzsec flat-out just made me mad. Wasting their abilities being complete dickwads to people who did nothing to provoke any sort of reaction? That's the work of abusive adults wearing flannel shirts and eating Cheetos. And the fact that Anonymous is well-known for silencing those that speak out against it seems blatantly hypocritical and narcissistic also just makes me turn away from those that revere them with disgust. *spits*
But after reading this article, its at least a comfort to know that not all of Anonymous is like that. The overall "goal" of what Anonymous was created for (though that isn't followed a lot of the time.) speaks true to me, and although I disagree with the method I think the idea is admirable.
Although by no means have I radically changed my opinion on Anonymous. I mean, the whole idea of it just seems so...nerdy? A group with no leader or system is something that 1) Has been used in a movie, a hero type movie. 2) Was a pretty good concept for a movie, not for something that's supposed to be a worldwide movement. People have made differences in this world through a variety of means, but one thing that they all have in common is that they were willing to make a sacrifice. That sacrifice differs case to case, but before that these people were willing to stand up and be recognized for what they were doing. Anonymous is missing that component. There isn't anything to rally around, and none of the people involved is willing to stand up and take the consequences and show that they truly believe in their cause. Right now, the only thing that Anonymous is telling me is that they don't really feel strongly about censorship, but they have the skills and extra time to pretend to care. If Anonymous truly cared about making a difference collectively, they'd speak up, show up, and make a difference. Sitting at home on a computer doesn't count as activism.
Misguided nobility is not nobility. The faster people realize that, the faster you're voice will be heard.
someday...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/13/tech/web/anonymous-sxsw/index.html
For a long time groups like Anonymous and the splinter group Lulzsec flat-out just made me mad. Wasting their abilities being complete dickwads to people who did nothing to provoke any sort of reaction? That's the work of abusive adults wearing flannel shirts and eating Cheetos. And the fact that Anonymous is well-known for silencing those that speak out against it seems blatantly hypocritical and narcissistic also just makes me turn away from those that revere them with disgust. *spits*
But after reading this article, its at least a comfort to know that not all of Anonymous is like that. The overall "goal" of what Anonymous was created for (though that isn't followed a lot of the time.) speaks true to me, and although I disagree with the method I think the idea is admirable.
Although by no means have I radically changed my opinion on Anonymous. I mean, the whole idea of it just seems so...nerdy? A group with no leader or system is something that 1) Has been used in a movie, a hero type movie. 2) Was a pretty good concept for a movie, not for something that's supposed to be a worldwide movement. People have made differences in this world through a variety of means, but one thing that they all have in common is that they were willing to make a sacrifice. That sacrifice differs case to case, but before that these people were willing to stand up and be recognized for what they were doing. Anonymous is missing that component. There isn't anything to rally around, and none of the people involved is willing to stand up and take the consequences and show that they truly believe in their cause. Right now, the only thing that Anonymous is telling me is that they don't really feel strongly about censorship, but they have the skills and extra time to pretend to care. If Anonymous truly cared about making a difference collectively, they'd speak up, show up, and make a difference. Sitting at home on a computer doesn't count as activism.
Misguided nobility is not nobility. The faster people realize that, the faster you're voice will be heard.
someday...
Friday, March 9, 2012
Mainstream Idiocy
The article I found for this week I chose mainly because it strikes close to my daily activities, my eHome if you will. I spend a large amount of time on sites such as Youtube and tumblr, and the subject of today's blogpost, Twitter. I'm not going to lie and say I spend a whole bunch of time on Twitter, but there are certain people I follow and so I visit the site somewhat frequently. And since I don't use any of these sites as social networking, this article struck an even better chord with me.
Anyway, here's a link;
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/tech/social-media/twitter-osama-death/index.html
A guy, live-tweeted the infiltration of Osama bin Laden's compound and the eventual killing of bin Laden. Ok, so beyond the absolute hilarity of that, I think its pretty interesting. One, he was able to use technology not only to inform the rest of the world of the "secret" events that happened in Pakistan that night, but also to accurately figure out the parts he couldn't see by messaging other people around town. I like to think that that's sort of a spit in the face of all the near-ancient people that claim technology is corrupting the world. Two, I think it is pretty cool to have a pure confirmation that Navy SEAL Team Six did indeed kill bin Laden that night. But really these are just random musings of a teenager completing an English assignment.
Anyway, here's a link;
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/tech/social-media/twitter-osama-death/index.html
A guy, live-tweeted the infiltration of Osama bin Laden's compound and the eventual killing of bin Laden. Ok, so beyond the absolute hilarity of that, I think its pretty interesting. One, he was able to use technology not only to inform the rest of the world of the "secret" events that happened in Pakistan that night, but also to accurately figure out the parts he couldn't see by messaging other people around town. I like to think that that's sort of a spit in the face of all the near-ancient people that claim technology is corrupting the world. Two, I think it is pretty cool to have a pure confirmation that Navy SEAL Team Six did indeed kill bin Laden that night. But really these are just random musings of a teenager completing an English assignment.
That being said, the article brings up one more subject. I find this subject to be the most interesting by far, as it brings up a subject that we deal with nearly everyday but often don't see while it stares us down and shoves thoughts into our heads. The man who live-tweeted the events last year was named Sohaib Athar, and he brought up a debate over this concept of a citizen journalist. Whether or not he was a journalist didn't really matter to me though, it was what he said after identifying himself as a citizen journalist. Athar said that mainstream journalism wasn't really that impressive to him as he was thrown into that world where news corporation scrambled to get exclusive interviews, offered money for the story, and most importantly Athar said the international journalist painted an inappropriate and inaccurate picture of what was actually happening. The journalists focused on what would get them the most readers and thus not only unfairly brought attacks on conservative Muslims, but also missed a greater part of the story. Things like this not only make me pretty angry, but remind me of things such as the yellow-dog journalism of the late 1800's that lead to the Spanish-American war. I mean, really? Journalists whipped up the public into forcing a declaration of war for what? A couple of sales on the streets? That sort of thing is not only completely stupid, but incredibly unethical. This sort of thing influences the public in such a large way, and no one seems to care. We know that we are only getting the inflammatory and exciting parts of the story, but we miss a huge part of what actually is happening! Why do we continue to let ourselves take in what isn't necessarily faulty information, but definitely not the whole picture and then expect to have an unbiased opinion?
I will never stop loving nanalew, meekakitty, or livelavalive.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Mixed Reactions
As I was browsing CNN in search of an article to slap some commentary on I stumbled upon this article; Boy Who Lost Army Dad inspires Help for Other Kids. Linked here:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/us/braydon-nichols-ireport-update/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
First off, before I even read the article the title invoked several feelings and thoughts within the deep (that's a lie.) and insightful (that is also a lie.) mind of mine but most of those really didn't have any substance. One, however, was one that has been a recurring thought and I think I should probably expand on it.
Why does it take an innocent child's plea for the citizens of our country to remember that there are those serving in our nation's military that do not receive the recognition they deserve, nor do they occupy the average American's daily thoughts. In a conversation with a friend recently, he informed me that "anyone who joins the military, at around this time, is stupid." and while I expected that from him, it continues to shock me that many share his sentiments. While we sit safely in our homes typing random and mostly pointless blog posts and playing video games with friends, there are those who choose to go out and fight for our country and our thoughts on them are what? Nothing? That they're stupid for putting themselves in harms way? Why do we forget so easily that regardless of the reason those brave men and women joined the military and regardless of how we feel about the conflicts they are involved in, that those people don't fight for themselves, they fight for us? If our response to the men and women in uniform is borderline contempt, there needs to be a reassessment of our thoughts.
Now, that being said, the body of the article is a touching story of how Braydon Nichols continues to receive feedback from people around the country, and the kids of the families that were affected by the helicopter crash that tragically killed his father are also thought of and taken care of. I realize that there are many who think past their own views to see that soldiers are still people; people with families and needs. While I'm disappointed that we don't take the initiative upon ourselves and act unselfishly for both the soldiers in the military and especially their families, I'm equally proud to live in a country where a kid can make an iReport and cause such a magnificent reaction among our community. (Braydon Nichol's iReport inspired a foundation for the families of those fallen in the line of duty.) But I do think we need to watch ourselves in our thoughts and actions that we never forget the sacrifice our military men and women have made, and continue to make each and everyday.
Mr. Level, look to the east on the dawn of the third day.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/us/braydon-nichols-ireport-update/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
First off, before I even read the article the title invoked several feelings and thoughts within the deep (that's a lie.) and insightful (that is also a lie.) mind of mine but most of those really didn't have any substance. One, however, was one that has been a recurring thought and I think I should probably expand on it.
Why does it take an innocent child's plea for the citizens of our country to remember that there are those serving in our nation's military that do not receive the recognition they deserve, nor do they occupy the average American's daily thoughts. In a conversation with a friend recently, he informed me that "anyone who joins the military, at around this time, is stupid." and while I expected that from him, it continues to shock me that many share his sentiments. While we sit safely in our homes typing random and mostly pointless blog posts and playing video games with friends, there are those who choose to go out and fight for our country and our thoughts on them are what? Nothing? That they're stupid for putting themselves in harms way? Why do we forget so easily that regardless of the reason those brave men and women joined the military and regardless of how we feel about the conflicts they are involved in, that those people don't fight for themselves, they fight for us? If our response to the men and women in uniform is borderline contempt, there needs to be a reassessment of our thoughts.
Now, that being said, the body of the article is a touching story of how Braydon Nichols continues to receive feedback from people around the country, and the kids of the families that were affected by the helicopter crash that tragically killed his father are also thought of and taken care of. I realize that there are many who think past their own views to see that soldiers are still people; people with families and needs. While I'm disappointed that we don't take the initiative upon ourselves and act unselfishly for both the soldiers in the military and especially their families, I'm equally proud to live in a country where a kid can make an iReport and cause such a magnificent reaction among our community. (Braydon Nichol's iReport inspired a foundation for the families of those fallen in the line of duty.) But I do think we need to watch ourselves in our thoughts and actions that we never forget the sacrifice our military men and women have made, and continue to make each and everyday.
Mr. Level, look to the east on the dawn of the third day.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Purpose? Besides the points.
Blog for Mr. Level's class, and is basically just my take on various headlines whether that be politics, world events, whatever. Anything that I can read off of your average news site is game for my witty commentary with absolutely no perspective.
We ride at dawn
the gods convene
We ride at dawn
the gods convene
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)