Thursday, August 23, 2007
The hug
To hug: to comfort, to understand, to empathize, to realize, to offer. The act of hugging is one of the most sacred interactions one can have with another being. It exposes the full vulnerability of both, or all, involved, and expresses the trust each one has for the other(s). It is not an act to be taken lightly. The hug is an act of culmination, or of initiation. It is a commitment. It is an offer, a request and at the same time a payment, free of obligation, devoid of debt, paid to fulfill a request for comfort, spoken or unspoken, conscious or subconscious. It expresses dependence. It is a symbol of relationship, momentary or long term, a symbol of love, agape, phileo, or eros, or all of the above. A single hug can change the course of a life, the power involved is extraordinary and as a wise man once said “with great power comes great responsibility.” In a hug is the potential to create or destroy, enlighten or depress. So take not this act lightly, but treat it with the casual reverence it deserves. Don’t let the hug be destroyed by these considerations, but do not give a hug without taking into account its potential, its power. Revere it, cherish it and take it not for granted.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The Pretenders
Culture today designates certain locations and time at which a variety of emotions are socially acceptable. There are the obvious ones, at or during a funeral one is expected to suppress laughter and keep the mood somber. At or during a wedding on is expected to share and contribute to the atmosphere of joy that is established by the happy couple. But then there is a far less obvious set of locations and times during which there are set socially acceptable norms by which those present are expected to abide. In public in general one is normal if they are happy or neutral, and even in the public environment there is such a thing as "too happy". When the question "How's life?" or "How are you?" is asked, the scripted, standard, acceptable response is "Good", nothing more, nothing less. If someone were to answer that question with a legitimate response that reflected their emotional state they would, in all likelihood, be shunned as an abnormal individual regardless of the positive or negative nature of their response.
Thus today in America we are faced with a nation of extremely skilled pretenders. Depression affects approximately 9.5% of the individuals in the United States, but you can be darn well sure that when you ask 100 people "How are you?" you aren't going to get nearly 10 that respond with "I dunno, I've been feeling kinda down lately" Why is this, it is because they are embarrassed, they are not supposed to be feeling that way, it's not normal. Their busy lives allow for the response "good" because it is what the other participant in the conversation expects and is prepared to respond to.
And so most of these 19 million Americans hide it, they put on their happy mask and go about their lives as if they were feeling as it is socially accepted to feel when if they just told someone and got hep they would find that more than 80% of the time if they just sought help they could be up and out of depression within two to three weeks. Different methods apply to different people, in some cases simply talking to a friend could make a world of difference. What is important is that the problem be addressed, not just the symptoms. So many people have become very skilled at disguising their depression for the sake of their social life.
Thus today in America we are faced with a nation of extremely skilled pretenders. Depression affects approximately 9.5% of the individuals in the United States, but you can be darn well sure that when you ask 100 people "How are you?" you aren't going to get nearly 10 that respond with "I dunno, I've been feeling kinda down lately" Why is this, it is because they are embarrassed, they are not supposed to be feeling that way, it's not normal. Their busy lives allow for the response "good" because it is what the other participant in the conversation expects and is prepared to respond to.
And so most of these 19 million Americans hide it, they put on their happy mask and go about their lives as if they were feeling as it is socially accepted to feel when if they just told someone and got hep they would find that more than 80% of the time if they just sought help they could be up and out of depression within two to three weeks. Different methods apply to different people, in some cases simply talking to a friend could make a world of difference. What is important is that the problem be addressed, not just the symptoms. So many people have become very skilled at disguising their depression for the sake of their social life.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Capital punishment is the specialized execution of criminals guilty of society’s most heinous crimes. Since the medieval times criminals have been removed from the population through execution as a method of deterrent against these crimes. Not only were these criminals killed but the method by which they were done away with was particularly violent. Many times it consisted of drawing and quartering which involved hanging until nearly unconscious, removing the entrails of said criminal, tying a rope to each limb and attaching each to a separate horse which then pulls in opposite directions, thus separating the body into 4 relatively equal parts; hence “quartering.” This method has since been abandoned throughout the world and replaced with more “humane” methods. Some of these include: beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal injection, shooting, and stoning, although lethal injection and shooting are the most common methods today.
Today many countries have abolished capital punishment as a “cruel and unusual punishment” just as the United States did in 1972 when the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional by the eighth amendment which states “Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” However, upon the review of the death penalty by the individual states and the revising of death penalty policy, capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. This very same process has been repeated throughout the world, Nepal abolished and reinstated capital punishment since 1990 as did Philippines, although most of the 40 nations that have abolished the death penalty since 1990 have kept faithful to this policy (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty, Amnesty International).
Today in the U.S. it is up to the individual states to decide whether or not the judge or juries have the right punish a prisoner with death. Nineteen states do not have the death penalty or have not used it since its reinstatement in 1976 (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). Texas has killed the most people since 1976 with 313 out of a total of 885 (World Almanac and Book of Facts, 651) but most of the executions in the U.S. are done by and in five states, the aforementioned Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Florida and Virginia (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). The majority of these are done using lethal injection.
Internationally it varies widely as to whether or not capital punishment is actually in place and if it is the method by which it is carried out. In Afghanistan and Iran, stoning is a legitimate method of capital punishment (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty, Amnesty International). This used commonly throughout biblical times, this is a method by which the victim is buried up to the neck and pelted with rocks until they die (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). This is used as a punishment for murder, adultery and similar crimes (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). Many countries today have banned the use of the death penalty and many have done so recently, both Canada and Mexico have done so since 1990. There are 86 countries around the world that have completely banned the use of the death penalty. On the other hand the U.S. has killed very few inmates in comparison to China, who, official reports estimate, kills at least 3400 people per year. The total number of people killed by capital punishment in 2004 is only 3797, giving China 90% of the total of those killed every year by the death penalty. And that is only the official reports. There have been unofficial counts that hover around 10,000 in 2004 by China alone which would give China 96% of all those killed worldwide by capital punishment (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty, Amnesty International).
Capital punishment has been controversial all the time it has ever been in place and for good reason. There are many flaws in the arguments for the death penalty although there are relevant arguments for it, the costs outweigh the benefits by a large margin. It is often stated that the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent, whereas the violent crime rate in states with the death penalty is on average almost twice as high as in states without the death penalty (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). Also, contrary to popular belief, it is far more expensive to execute a prisoner than it sis to imprison them for life. There are flaws in the America legal system that allow for the execution of innocent people. And finally the argument of its inhumanness, can killing in any form ever be “humane”?
The argument that capital punishment is a deterrent is being seriously challenged based on certain facts along with the opinions and observations of many of those within the law enforcement system. An extensive survey conducted by the united nations in 1988 and updated in 2002 concluded “. . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.” (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty, Amnesty International) Upon conducting a survey of police chiefs around the nation the following was found to be true: “Police chiefs rank the death penalty last as a way of reducing violent crime, placing it behind curbing drug abuse, more police officers on the streets, lowering the technical barriers to prosecution, longer sentences and a better economy with more jobs.” (Dieter, 23) Using this argument was simply an assumption that fooled the majority of the population until it was disproved through extensive research.
The death penalty is also far more expensive to carry out than it costs on average $2 million more to imprison an inmate for the rest of their lives (Morgenthau, 15). The average amount of time an inmate spends on death row appealing their case before they are actually executed is 7 years. The longest amount of time ever spent on death row before execution was 17 years. Some argue that we should simply eliminate this process to save time and money. But it is this very process that we rely on to determine the innocence of the accused. The execution of innocent people (which some still claim happens) is prevented for the most part as a result of the length of this process. Even so, Great Britain has refused to extradite prisoners to the United States until the possibility of the death penalty was dropped, not because of the punishment itself but because of the waiting period between the sentencing and the actual execution (Dieter, International Influence…). This waiting period has been deemed by many more inhumane than the execution itself.
The possibility of the execution of innocent people is also a dark cloud that always seems to hover over the issue of capital punishment. As long as there are human being trying the cases of other human beings there is going to be bias involved in one way or another. In the past century more than 160 inmates have been exonerated as a result of DNA testing, of those 160, 14 of them were on death row (Colin, 787). 14 innocent men who could have been killed and, according to the American legal system, should have been killed were, in fact, not guilty of crimes heinous enough for their lives to be taken from them. For a human to pay the ultimate sacrifice over a crime that they did not commit is simply unthinkable. It is hard to believe that it may very well have already happened. It has been estimated that over the years in the United States up to 23 people have been executed for crimes which they did not commit (Morgenthau, 15).
Then one must ask one’s self, could taking the life of another human being ever be considered humane? Especially since most of the time when someone is sentenced with the death penalty it is as a result of killing someone in the first place. Some argue that the reason violent crime rates are higher in areas where the death penalty is imposed is because the government “cheapens the value of life” (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” One must consider the possibility that in killing those who kill others, they are simply normalizing the act of murder.
There are many arguments for retaining the death penalty, but it seems that there are so many more reasons that it should have never been in place in the beginning. The death penalty should dimply be abolished, there are many, many alternatives that could be utilized over this unreliable, inhumane, expensive, broken “solution.”
Today many countries have abolished capital punishment as a “cruel and unusual punishment” just as the United States did in 1972 when the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional by the eighth amendment which states “Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” However, upon the review of the death penalty by the individual states and the revising of death penalty policy, capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. This very same process has been repeated throughout the world, Nepal abolished and reinstated capital punishment since 1990 as did Philippines, although most of the 40 nations that have abolished the death penalty since 1990 have kept faithful to this policy (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty, Amnesty International).
Today in the U.S. it is up to the individual states to decide whether or not the judge or juries have the right punish a prisoner with death. Nineteen states do not have the death penalty or have not used it since its reinstatement in 1976 (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). Texas has killed the most people since 1976 with 313 out of a total of 885 (World Almanac and Book of Facts, 651) but most of the executions in the U.S. are done by and in five states, the aforementioned Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Florida and Virginia (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). The majority of these are done using lethal injection.
Internationally it varies widely as to whether or not capital punishment is actually in place and if it is the method by which it is carried out. In Afghanistan and Iran, stoning is a legitimate method of capital punishment (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty, Amnesty International). This used commonly throughout biblical times, this is a method by which the victim is buried up to the neck and pelted with rocks until they die (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). This is used as a punishment for murder, adultery and similar crimes (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). Many countries today have banned the use of the death penalty and many have done so recently, both Canada and Mexico have done so since 1990. There are 86 countries around the world that have completely banned the use of the death penalty. On the other hand the U.S. has killed very few inmates in comparison to China, who, official reports estimate, kills at least 3400 people per year. The total number of people killed by capital punishment in 2004 is only 3797, giving China 90% of the total of those killed every year by the death penalty. And that is only the official reports. There have been unofficial counts that hover around 10,000 in 2004 by China alone which would give China 96% of all those killed worldwide by capital punishment (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty, Amnesty International).
Capital punishment has been controversial all the time it has ever been in place and for good reason. There are many flaws in the arguments for the death penalty although there are relevant arguments for it, the costs outweigh the benefits by a large margin. It is often stated that the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent, whereas the violent crime rate in states with the death penalty is on average almost twice as high as in states without the death penalty (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). Also, contrary to popular belief, it is far more expensive to execute a prisoner than it sis to imprison them for life. There are flaws in the America legal system that allow for the execution of innocent people. And finally the argument of its inhumanness, can killing in any form ever be “humane”?
The argument that capital punishment is a deterrent is being seriously challenged based on certain facts along with the opinions and observations of many of those within the law enforcement system. An extensive survey conducted by the united nations in 1988 and updated in 2002 concluded “. . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.” (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty, Amnesty International) Upon conducting a survey of police chiefs around the nation the following was found to be true: “Police chiefs rank the death penalty last as a way of reducing violent crime, placing it behind curbing drug abuse, more police officers on the streets, lowering the technical barriers to prosecution, longer sentences and a better economy with more jobs.” (Dieter, 23) Using this argument was simply an assumption that fooled the majority of the population until it was disproved through extensive research.
The death penalty is also far more expensive to carry out than it costs on average $2 million more to imprison an inmate for the rest of their lives (Morgenthau, 15). The average amount of time an inmate spends on death row appealing their case before they are actually executed is 7 years. The longest amount of time ever spent on death row before execution was 17 years. Some argue that we should simply eliminate this process to save time and money. But it is this very process that we rely on to determine the innocence of the accused. The execution of innocent people (which some still claim happens) is prevented for the most part as a result of the length of this process. Even so, Great Britain has refused to extradite prisoners to the United States until the possibility of the death penalty was dropped, not because of the punishment itself but because of the waiting period between the sentencing and the actual execution (Dieter, International Influence…). This waiting period has been deemed by many more inhumane than the execution itself.
The possibility of the execution of innocent people is also a dark cloud that always seems to hover over the issue of capital punishment. As long as there are human being trying the cases of other human beings there is going to be bias involved in one way or another. In the past century more than 160 inmates have been exonerated as a result of DNA testing, of those 160, 14 of them were on death row (Colin, 787). 14 innocent men who could have been killed and, according to the American legal system, should have been killed were, in fact, not guilty of crimes heinous enough for their lives to be taken from them. For a human to pay the ultimate sacrifice over a crime that they did not commit is simply unthinkable. It is hard to believe that it may very well have already happened. It has been estimated that over the years in the United States up to 23 people have been executed for crimes which they did not commit (Morgenthau, 15).
Then one must ask one’s self, could taking the life of another human being ever be considered humane? Especially since most of the time when someone is sentenced with the death penalty it is as a result of killing someone in the first place. Some argue that the reason violent crime rates are higher in areas where the death penalty is imposed is because the government “cheapens the value of life” (FACTS ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PART 1). Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” One must consider the possibility that in killing those who kill others, they are simply normalizing the act of murder.
There are many arguments for retaining the death penalty, but it seems that there are so many more reasons that it should have never been in place in the beginning. The death penalty should dimply be abolished, there are many, many alternatives that could be utilized over this unreliable, inhumane, expensive, broken “solution.”
Friday, June 24, 2005
Assertion of Power
I think I have discovered what it is that pisses me off about scouts as well as many classes at school and it is this: The teacher/leader's obsessive habit to assert their authority over those under them. Basically they seem to feel the need to not just be in charge, but make sure that we, the underlings, know this beyond and reasonable doubt. I can sort of deal with this at scouts due to the fact that, me being an eagle scout, I have some authority within the troop. When I say things people listen. I can assert myself and raise myself up so that they have less power over me.
At school it is a completely different story. The teacher needs to make sure the students know that they are the teacher and as such in charge. But I see a teacher more as one who begins and leads a discussion, not as one who sits at the front of the class and drones and lectures. In my view, lecturing is one way of a teacher reassuring themselves that they are in charge. The problem with lecturing though is that, unless you have the very rare ability to make it interesting, it does not enable the person doing it to gain the respect of their listeners. Granted, if the lecturer is extremely smart and is able to lecture effectively, I would be impressed and they would have my respect. But frankly I respect teachers who are able to use Socratic satire to lead and direct a discussion in which their students are directly involved far more.
Student involvement is essential to gain respect in a classroom and frankly, anywhere. Maybe not student involvement. But this is why democracy, when used correctly, works over any other. There is, of course, leadership but there is also citizen involvement. Hence voting. We as citizens are supposed to be intricately involved in the government. This is why it has worked for so long. This is why dictatorships, fascism, communism and others like them have traditionally failed over the course of time. None of them allow for any input from those who are ruled.
This is why America has so many unhappy citizens at the moment. Because around half of its population has very little say in what goes on in the upper regions of our government. This could have very easily been predicted.
Think of America as a very large scale. One of the really old scales that had the two platforms hanging on either side of the central pole. At the beginning, the scales were perfectly balanced; there were an equal amount of federalists and democratic-republicans. Over time more parties were added, many died and disappeared, but eventually two dominant parties appeared. They fought for over a century and the scale leaned back and forth as each side added more members or lost some. Now after a very long time of adding and subtracting the scale is finally balanced, but another problem has presented itself. The balance was not built to hold this many people. It is beginning to break.
The people on the right side of the scale have a slight advantage but our founding fathers never designed this system to have so many dissatisfied citizens on the other side of the scale. In communism the other side of the scale represents deportation or death as it does in fascism. So what do we do now? All I know is that the ultimate form of citizen involvement is anarchy. But many have claimed that communism, if used correctly, could be far more successful than capitalism has ever been. I vote fuck the system and just accept each other, regardless of political party or in fact any label, and move on with life
At school it is a completely different story. The teacher needs to make sure the students know that they are the teacher and as such in charge. But I see a teacher more as one who begins and leads a discussion, not as one who sits at the front of the class and drones and lectures. In my view, lecturing is one way of a teacher reassuring themselves that they are in charge. The problem with lecturing though is that, unless you have the very rare ability to make it interesting, it does not enable the person doing it to gain the respect of their listeners. Granted, if the lecturer is extremely smart and is able to lecture effectively, I would be impressed and they would have my respect. But frankly I respect teachers who are able to use Socratic satire to lead and direct a discussion in which their students are directly involved far more.
Student involvement is essential to gain respect in a classroom and frankly, anywhere. Maybe not student involvement. But this is why democracy, when used correctly, works over any other. There is, of course, leadership but there is also citizen involvement. Hence voting. We as citizens are supposed to be intricately involved in the government. This is why it has worked for so long. This is why dictatorships, fascism, communism and others like them have traditionally failed over the course of time. None of them allow for any input from those who are ruled.
This is why America has so many unhappy citizens at the moment. Because around half of its population has very little say in what goes on in the upper regions of our government. This could have very easily been predicted.
Think of America as a very large scale. One of the really old scales that had the two platforms hanging on either side of the central pole. At the beginning, the scales were perfectly balanced; there were an equal amount of federalists and democratic-republicans. Over time more parties were added, many died and disappeared, but eventually two dominant parties appeared. They fought for over a century and the scale leaned back and forth as each side added more members or lost some. Now after a very long time of adding and subtracting the scale is finally balanced, but another problem has presented itself. The balance was not built to hold this many people. It is beginning to break.
The people on the right side of the scale have a slight advantage but our founding fathers never designed this system to have so many dissatisfied citizens on the other side of the scale. In communism the other side of the scale represents deportation or death as it does in fascism. So what do we do now? All I know is that the ultimate form of citizen involvement is anarchy. But many have claimed that communism, if used correctly, could be far more successful than capitalism has ever been. I vote fuck the system and just accept each other, regardless of political party or in fact any label, and move on with life
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Wealth in America
We as middle class Americans are completely satisfied with the place we are in. The upper class always wants to get higher, and the lower class does too. The middle class in general is just thankful that it is not any lower than it is. The thing is even if the middle class were to revolt and evenly distribute the wealth about the population, the classes would reappear just as quickly as they went under the surface. There were many things that changed when the human race split off from the rest of the animals. One thing that didn’t change was the individual’s desire to dominate. Even thought we may not think so we all have this desire to some extent. We as humans also expect to receive what we believe we deserve based on our status and/or the work that we do. As such socialism will never work. But something needs to be done. Any ideas, I welcome suggestions.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Hypocrisy in America
I am an atheist, but I am accepting of the religions of others. Because of this I expect others with their religions to be accepting of me. Not only that but I expect them to accept the beliefs of any American because as Americans we are all free to choose whatever religion we like, if any. Not only are we free to choose our own religion but we are also free to express ourselves in any way that is not in conflict with the constitution, and if we object to the constitution we are entitled to petition for its alteration. What we as Americans are not allowed to do is to reject those from our contorted little world who do not conform to the small enclosed box that is our system of beliefs. We may not alter the constitution to exclude those with whom we do not agree. Also, as Americans, it is our obligation to uphold the current constitution, no matter its flaws, even if we are in the process of altering it. Webster’s definition of obligation is as follows: “Something that one is bound to do or forbear (as by law, conscience, or social pressure) : DUTY” and duty is defined as “RESPECT,” we, as Americans, the constitution and therefore all those under it. It is our civic duty as Americans to respect all those under the authority of the constitution, regardless of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. Regardless of the fact that I am an atheist, I still go to church (mainly because my parents go to church and force me to go as well) but even so, I do respect Christianity and in some cases believe in it, but strictly as a philosophy. But today while the pastor was speaking on gay marriage he quoted a very interesting verse. He quoted Ephesians 5:22-31, and I can see how Christians could take that literally as “Marriage was meant to be between one man and one woman,” but then I looked a few lines below and can you guess what I saw? I saw a chapter of the Holy Bible titled “Slaves and Masters.” Using the same logic as before I can derive the following fact from the preceding statement: Slavery is okay and God meant for it to happen. But I can also be open minded and realize that just as with the first statement, there are alternatives to this. We are civilized now and we hire people to get work done. Just as slavery disappeared over the years, homosexuality has grown over the years. It is shown itself more and more over the years and it is about time that the world accepted it. Gays and lesbians are not going away, and the American (including Christians) people need to come to realize this. It is about time we lived up to our constitution and respected everyone who lives under it. Homosexuals are breaking no laws but those defined in the bible and as such should not be discriminated against by the United States government which has been separated from all religions.
The first amendment to the constitution of the United States clearly states the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” I might be mistaken but it seems to me that most of those objecting to gay and lesbian marriage are doing so because their preachers tell them that it is wrong. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying all Christians are against homosexual marriage. Some are the complete opposite and I commend them as such. But most of those objecting to same sex marriage are Christians, George W. Bush being one of these. It is already known that Bush is a Christian and believes in the bible, he reads it every day and has stated this publicly. On the other hand he has cleverly concealed from the public his views on certain political issues pertaining to Christianity, but his actions paint a pretty clear picture of his beliefs.
It is time that we as Americans voted not with our religion but with what is right. It is time we voted with regard for the basic morals set down for us by the founding fathers.
The first amendment to the constitution of the United States clearly states the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” I might be mistaken but it seems to me that most of those objecting to gay and lesbian marriage are doing so because their preachers tell them that it is wrong. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying all Christians are against homosexual marriage. Some are the complete opposite and I commend them as such. But most of those objecting to same sex marriage are Christians, George W. Bush being one of these. It is already known that Bush is a Christian and believes in the bible, he reads it every day and has stated this publicly. On the other hand he has cleverly concealed from the public his views on certain political issues pertaining to Christianity, but his actions paint a pretty clear picture of his beliefs.
It is time that we as Americans voted not with our religion but with what is right. It is time we voted with regard for the basic morals set down for us by the founding fathers.
Education in America
I have recently come to the realization that America’s educational system has ceased to be a tool for the teaching of Americas you ad has become instead a complicated system through which one’s knowledge is showcased and verified for the sole purpose of validating one’s diploma. This is done namely to benefit prospective employers. The life of a child from the age of five to an adult at the age of eighteen is used simply to prove that what they claim to have contained within their skulls actually is there. Once you consider this it is most logical solution one could come to. If school existed with only education in mind there would a complete lack of grading, tests, no official graduation. One would simply attend until they reached their desired level of education and once they reached this point they would move on into the workforce. It would then be the responsibility of the employer to ensure the skills of the applicant.
Standardized test are yet another way to go about proving our worth to prospective places of employment. Most of the time they are used indirectly for this purpose by colleges. Because this is the case I am not sure why it is necessary to take these tests at such a young age as they are being given. I see them as a waste of time that could be used more valuably teaching the students rather than testing them over what they, in many cases, have yet to learn.
I have observed over the years the amount of stress that is applied to students to do well and I believe that not only is this unhealthy for the students but also that the stress level could be reduced dramatically if the tests were simply done away with. Ask most any teacher and the first thing they will tell you about the “No Child Left Behind” act is that it takes up too much time and it simply gets in the way. If the pressure to do well on these tests was removed and instead the students were encouraged to learn all they could and simply explore different subject in order to find what they like best. I, for one, would learn far more in school of the learning environment were not so focused on doing well on tests. Focusing instead on learning and preparing for the real tests that are yet to come in life, I believe, would be far more helpful on the road to a successful life.
Standardized test are yet another way to go about proving our worth to prospective places of employment. Most of the time they are used indirectly for this purpose by colleges. Because this is the case I am not sure why it is necessary to take these tests at such a young age as they are being given. I see them as a waste of time that could be used more valuably teaching the students rather than testing them over what they, in many cases, have yet to learn.
I have observed over the years the amount of stress that is applied to students to do well and I believe that not only is this unhealthy for the students but also that the stress level could be reduced dramatically if the tests were simply done away with. Ask most any teacher and the first thing they will tell you about the “No Child Left Behind” act is that it takes up too much time and it simply gets in the way. If the pressure to do well on these tests was removed and instead the students were encouraged to learn all they could and simply explore different subject in order to find what they like best. I, for one, would learn far more in school of the learning environment were not so focused on doing well on tests. Focusing instead on learning and preparing for the real tests that are yet to come in life, I believe, would be far more helpful on the road to a successful life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
