Technology or Teacher?

Throughout my years of middle and high school I have really enjoyed the feedback given by teachers to my writing, which has grown and progressed over time. I believe that my writing would have ceased to improve if the various pieces of advice were never shared with me and for this reason I believe that the Robo-Reader should not be used to grade papers. Sure technology can get many papers graded much faster than a teacher can read even one as seen in Source B, “an e-Rater can grade 16,000 essays in 20 seconds”, but why should the convenience of time take the opportunity to get to know a student’s ability away?

Many people express their feelings and thoughts more in depth when writing class papers and essays, especially high school students. When the teacher reads and grades the assignment, it provides an opportunity to see their perspective and understand a different way of thinking. Not only does this help build relationships between teacher and student, the feedback allows the student insight on other useful ideas or tactics to utilize. Torie Bosch states that teachers are more or less inconsistent graders and so the creation of software that matches the grading of professionals is of substantial difficulty (Source D). I think many students would agree that overall teachers in McFarland are extremely consistent when reviewing student work. Also if the reader would be inconsistent for being unable to identify well with professional grading, it should not be used. As shown by Steve Kolwich, “But can a machine that cannot draw out meaning, and cares nothing for creativity or truth, really match the work of a human reader?” (Source A). A paper graded by a teacher or this new software would make for completely different experiences as the two would be searching for different criteria.

I also feel that using this Robo-Reader and E-reader software will cause the writing of people all across America to become all too similar as well as change the teachings and freedom of the English language. Michael Winerip states that “if you’re not allowed to use a sentence fragment, if you’re not allowed to use a, you know, short paragraph, sometimes that can be very dramatic. And, if those are breaking the rules, you’re going to get a more and more homogenized form of writing when the joy of writing is surprise” (Source E). As a high school student that writes many papers over the course of a year, I like having the freedom to apply my voice and style by repeating statements, making some lines shorter than others, and so on. With a Robo-Reader my creative rights would be stripped from me and I would quickly be made to conform to some boring style and mold of writing that I wouldn’t enjoy, thus taking away the fun and exciting essence that writing can have. This will give writing a bad name over the years and make students less motivated to construct a solid paper.

Though these new software programs may make work easier on the professionals, it does no justice to the students and benefits us in no way, shape, or form. True that it may be able to return papers quicker, but I would much rather wait and have personal feedback over that of a machine that searches for nit-picky things. Writing deserves to be graded upon its creative basis and I know that teacher will consider that whereas this software will not.

Not So Simple Divisions

After reading the text “Shadowy Lines That Still Divide” by Janny Scott and David Leonhardt, it definitely put into perspective just how much the class lines are blurred sometimes and how different everyone’s lives are. The class cuts don’t really fit everyone, but they serve more generally in hopes to classify large groups of people in a wide range. How is that effective? How is that efficient? It isn’t.

 One of the passages that caught my attention in this piece was in the very beginning. The text states “It has become harder to read people’s status in the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the votes they cast, the god they worship, the color of their skin”. I could not agree more with this! I know so many people that are in financial troubles that try and wear nice clothes and have nice material things so people don’t question their current financial state. It all almost serves as a cover-up method sometimes, just so they can hide. To me this is almost irresponsible because all of that money could be going to much better things, like daily necessities and even bigger things like health bills and whatnot. My family is definitely not rich by any means, but I can still afford to buy a few things here and there when I want within reason. It’s always been a good system and I understand that my parents aren’t made of money; they made that clear long ago. Everyone comes from a different background and financial situation, but people’s actions nowadays don’t necessarily dictate how well off they are and for this reading people has become very complicated and the divisions of the social class identities are now inaccurate.

Towards the end of the reading a second excerpt that I could identify well with was that of “The scramble to scoop up a house in the best school district, channel a child into the right preschool program or land the best medical specialist are all part of a quiet contest among social groups that the affluent and educated are winning in a rout”. Overall this is 100% true and straightforward. Those that have more knowledge and are financially of a higher class have a much better shot at getting a good education and foundation for their children, though they may not always come right out and tell people that that’s what they’re competing for. In McFarland, we have an amazing education system and the land is so expensive because of property taxes, but of course, everyone wants to move here because of schooling. With that said, it only makes sense that those who can afford the high prices will be more apt to move here than someone with less cash to give. I’m grateful that my parents allowed me to grow up and be nurtured by such a great community for so long and feel for those whom aren’t able to have the same experience as I. Across the globe it is a silent battle to get the best of the best and that causes the divide between the rich and poor to be seen clearly. The rich will keep getting richer and poor poorer for they will be trying to keep up and compete.

Financial status in the United States has been a hot and controversial topic for quite some time, and though I can’t say that the divisions between classes will ever be set clear or completely accurate for each American, I know where I come from that’s what matters to me. Americans will always come from different financial situations and social classes, and that’s what makes it such a great, diverse place. Maybe if Americans didn’t judge people by looks and money, class divisions would seem much more simplistic and disappear, leaving everyone much more relaxed and happy.

Transcendentalist or Anti-Transcendentalist? Ay or Ney?

The philosophical idea of Transcendentalism is one that encompasses many broad ideas of independence, self-worth, individuality, and civil protest against common societal and cultural ideals. Through reading works from both perspectives I have realized that my views consist of a mixture of both sides! The pieces by Ralph Waldo Emerson as well as Henry David Thoreau express the ideas of public institutions corrupting people and their views/values and that one is better as an individual, shown in the quote “I think we should be men first, and subjects afterward”, to which I both agree and disagree.

 Overall I somewhat agree with these ideas because of course people’s views and values will be affected by the leaders of the world (the government) as well as common ideals (religion) but that doesn't mean that someone still cannot be happy and at peace with these institutions.

As Thoreau expresses in Civil Disobedience, “That government is best which governs not at all.” He was against what the government was doing with his taxes because he wasn’t using some of the services, so he decided to not pay and understood that he was to complete whatever consequence followed. He knew this and was perfectly fine with it, for he knew that even if it may not cause a huge movement against the government right away he was expressing his views and maybe that would give someone courage to do the same. Some citizens on the other hand are perfectly happy with the actions of the government and their religion, which I believe is also very probable occurrence. I also however believe that if someone is unsatisfied with the ways of the world and their lives, they hold the right to express their feelings and speak out against the acts being done (given to us in the Bill of Rights) so long as it doesn’t harm the public and the protest is considerate of others whom are innocent.

As also seen in Emerson’s Self Reliance piece, the idea of the individual is quite prevalent. “Society never advances…For everything that is given, something is taken.” I agree that typically when something good happens, it can be commonly followed by a bad thing in our society. As materialists, we often struggle to see the picture for what it truly is. That being said, I like having the institutions we do today because it requires people to abide by the same common rule and have consequences for when that doesn’t happen.

Though I greatly believe that some people conjure up great ways of life and ideas when independent, it's hard to think that however great someone is, that they wouldn't need anyone else or need to rely on anything. Reviewing the different beliefs I have and the ideas expressed throughout the Transcendentalist papers, it’s easy for me to say I’m a mixture between an anti-Transcendentalist and Transcendentalist.

Declaration of Personal Independence from Chcolate

In Lab 210, February 7, 2013

THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF ME, MYSELF, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY I

During one’s life there are bound to be obstacles and hardships, struggles and sacrifice. Sometimes these are minimal and can be easily overcome with aid from others and one’s own strong willpower, however, some things are just too insurmountable. It can be a fight each day solely to wake up and know its rigorous effect on one’s life. If it ever comes to this unbearable suffocation, all that’s left to do is act and eliminate the problem at once.

I hold these truths to be self evident, that all sweets shall be treated equal, control with candy to always be important and maintained, and although chocolate can provide me happiness, indulgence, and satiation, in too much enjoyment it can morph into an enemy. The following are all problems with which I have encountered through my lingering susceptibility to the world of chocolate.

Chocolate has plundered my taste buds into only craving it and only it.

Chocolate has reconstructed my stomach’s wants and needs.

Chocolate has robbed me of substantial amounts of money, making my wallet empty and cold.

Chocolate has snatched up a lot of my free time by its required amount of daily eating.

Chocolate has introduced multiple health risks to my life (and I’d like to live to see at least 30 years of age).

Chocolate has been known to leave a very unpleasant dry sensation in my mouth when eaten in large amounts.

Chocolate has boosted my energy to soaring amounts by providing high doses of caffeine to my system and greatly increasing my amounts of restless nights.

Chocolate has ingrained its soul into my brain and has made it unacceptably hard to forget.

Chocolate has refused all efforts of my denial and continues to dwell in the back of my every thought.

Chocolate has completely and utterly dominated my brain and allows no other direction of ideas.

In each of the issues stated above I have worked to change and lessen the hold that chocolate has had on me for some time. I’ve worked on keeping chocolate in the back of my pantry and out of sight, buying more fruits and vegetables, and immersing myself in other snacks, but each time I seek resolution, it results in little to no betterment of the situation at hand.

At times I have gotten discouraged for I feel the tight grip it holds, but in order to change my life’s course, drastic times call for drastic measures and working to counteract the definition of Insanity- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results- new ways of thinking are in order.

I, therefore, as the representative and director of my own life, appealing to my own common welfare, DO, in the Name, and by Authority of me, myself, and I, solemnly PUBLISH and DECLARE, that I am, and of Right, ought to be free and independent from the wrath of chocolate from here unto forever. All connection between us is and ought to be totally dissolved and that as a FREE and INDEPENDENT individual have full power to deny the lethal power chocolate obtains and to do all and any other things which an independent mind may. And for the support of this Declaration, I mutually pledge to myself my Life, my Discipline, and my Dedication.

ALLISON BLASER, President

The Mississippi by Franquelin 1682

1.     There are many things that initially caught my attention. The bordered writings are interesting in they explain the language (French), how there is no longitude, and to whom the map is sketched for, and that this may be the first French map of Mississippi ever. Another thing is the dispersed drawings of the animals across the map that dictates what animal can be found in that area. In the south are moose/elk and as one moves north buffalos and camels become evident. The small depictions of the trees also illustrate where forestland and wilderness areas are. A few of the smaller but more important details I noticed were the many houses drawn to symbolize villages, along with a few smaller houses around what appears to be a cross. This set-up demonstrates a religious area that practices the way of the Lord. On the far left of the screen towards the south there is a man standing with what seems to be a bayonet, protecting or hunting that place. The map also contains the names of the many Indian Nations on the eastern side of the Mississippi River.

2.     This map tells the story of an area with a lot of different animal presences accompanied by many Indian nations that lived off of the land and the surrounding wildlife. From reading the borders there is an assumption some Indians live there that actually do not and an interesting discovery is that this map and the placement of all of the pictures dictates that the map actually drawn before the year of 1682. Value is placed on animals providing service and food along with some stress on religion. I’ve always been taught about the Indians being people that made well off of what the land had to offer, as those things appear plentiful in the picture of the map.

3.     Reading Babb’s article again, I found a quote that is perfect and fits this map in an amazing way. The quote says, “What this map displays is a land that is not yet English, one still the domain of its native peoples”.  There is no better way to describe this map. It shows Indians still dominate this area at this time and that they are still living in peace and serenity while making the most of the land and its resources.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?gmd:70:./temp/~ammem_KelO::

Presidential Speeches

Comparing the inauguration speeches of the central author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, to that of Barack Obama’s, it’s interesting to see how ideas seem to have changed over time and how government based topics have been swiftly replaced by the topic of the people. The comparison between the two also highlights fundamental changes in a President’s way of thinking.

Thomas Jefferson was considered a founding father and was elected in the year of 1801 and then again in 1805. Because he was a founding father, I thought his count for the word government would be sky-rocket high compared to today’s world because of how government based and focused his work had been so far. And just as I had suspected, Jefferson utilized this word thirteen times throughout the duration of his speech. This speech was known to be one that would set the tone for later inaugural addresses as well as to demonstrate the principles upon which his administration would work. One of Jefferson’s outstanding quotes from the government-based speech is “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists”.

The first inaugural speech by current president Barack Obama was one that was mainly working based in 2009. A few of the most frequently used words were nation, America, people, work, generation, common, and time. At this time the economy was facing hardship and Obama discussed the idea of rebuilding together, along with the idea of restoring America’s place in the world. This speech definitely had the feel of the portrayal of things Americans would work to fix verses what the government would do to ensure this process. To put it in perspective, the word government was only used four times compared to the previous thirteen by the government-focused Jefferson.

The fundamental differences between the Presidents are easily highlighted by the speeches differing themes. As discussed on the internet site Reetzality, Jefferson was in full support of the right to bear arms so the people could protect themselves against tyranny whereas Obama’s been quoted stating “Even if I wanted to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress”. Another differing point is that Jefferson feared a large national debt whereas Obama has been slowly working to decrease the large amount we have now. This brings us to the final idea that Jefferson fully supported American Independence and only used the word world four times throughout his speech whereas Obama hoped for world unity, using world upwards of seven different times.

Overall these two men were inaugurated in different social settings and how often the word government was used definitely was impacted by their differing focuses and backgrounds. Jefferson was largely influenced by his writing of the Declaration of Independence, a huge moment in history. In opposition, Obama was influenced by his election during an intense decade-long war and the election into a huge economic crisis. This comparison shows that the current state of the country along with the president’s background affects the speech and what it delivers in significant ways.

Apocalypse Strategies

In the opening scenes of the film Apocalypse, there are many strategies used by the filmmaker, Francis Ford Coppola, to convey ideas and foreshadow what the remaining minutes of the movie may have in store. A few of the tools I picked up on were the angles presented as well as the lighting. It’s silent at first with a close up of the jungle and suddenly a helicopter zooms by. The scene of the bombing and helicopters is upright, until the frame of a man comes into perspective. He appears upside down, dazed, and a bit confused. His face remains faintly in the background while an image of the bombing continues, and slowly the man’s face turns right-side up. I think the decision to use this strategy was mainly to show how a bombing flips some people’s worlds upside down and can leave people completely blind-sided. It impacted my understanding by thinking that maybe this man was a victim or an army soldier wounded by the bombing. It made me curious, especially when he when the camera finally zeroed in on the man lying down on a couch with a camera angled up connecting with a ceiling fan. Could this be PTSD triggered by helicopters? I believe it arises questions, perplexing the audience and keeping them engaged. The lighting is another tool that Coppola utilizes in the opening scenes. It opens on a bright picture of beautiful palm trees with plentiful lighting, and as the image of the man appears, his surrounding light is dark. The bombing scene has vivid lighting, but that changes as the frame of the man lying in the room appears. The lighting for this is darker with many more shadows, until he gets up to go look at the outside to figure out where he’s located. I think the filmmaker wants us to take from this that when finally alone, the soldiers have ‘darker’ and sadder attitudes and feel somewhat isolated from the rest of the population. This makes the audience question whom this man is and what role he will take on in the movie. Overall the tools and strategies brought into the first few frames set up the rest of the movie very well and draw the audience in with ease.