Within the past two weeks, our very own Lakeview High School has administered the PARCC tests to the eighth graders and freshmen. With this being the first school year these assessments have been put into effect, some of us, including myself, probably have no clue what they are. Also, since us juniors haven't been affected by them (not yet, at least) we most likely don't know what they are or what they are trying to accomplish. All I know is that they caused our lunch times to switch around and they prevented us from having another calamity day this week. But what is the purpose of these tests?
The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC as we call it, is a coalition of states that work "together to develop a set of assessments that measure whether students are on track to be successful in college and their careers." Included in the group are Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. The PARCC tests are computer based and assess students in grades K-12 in the fields of math and English. The main goal of the new standardized tests are to test students on the information they are expected to learn in each grade level and to make sure they are on the right track to prepare for college. Teachers are now being expected to teach students all the material on the tests in order to "meet student needs." The main material on these assessments are the new common core standards, which are meant to provide students with "college and career readiness." All in all, PARCC tests are assessments of the upcoming standards that aim to prepare students for their education paths after high school.
What's my opinion on PARCC testing? I guess I think there's both advantages and disadvantages to the new tests. I believe these assessments can be beneficial to students because they overall help students learn and increase their preparedness for college and future careers. PARCC tests do this by testing students on the most recent standards that they could need to learn for higher levels of education. Since the tests "are aligned with the new, more rigorous Common Core State Standards (CCSS), they ensure that every child is on a path to college and career readiness by measuring what students should know at each grade level." Although I do think the PARCC tests are beneficial to those taking them, I believe there are disadvantages as well. Students may feel overwhelmed and stressed from these tests. For example, our underclassmen here at Lakeview have been taking the PARCC tests for four straight days. I understand that these are two completely different tests, but last year as a sophomore I took the OGT's for five days in a row. My classmates and I have been there: the stress, the worry of not doing well and the feeling of being too pressured to do well. Imagine what the underclassmen must feel at this point. Instead, these PARCC tests should have been spread out throughout the school year. This new system of standardized testing can both be good and bad to the students taking it, but that doesn't change the fact that students of all grades across the country have to get used to them.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Why I Think "Women's Brains" is an Effective Argument (CRR)
In class we recently read, discussed and analyzed Stephen Jay Gould's "Women's Brains." In his essay, Gould discusses past theories of intellectuals regarding the intelligence of women, which he later proves wrong. To prove the other scientists wrong, Gould analyzes the faults in their data and uses them to his advantage. In my opinion Gould effectively argues his message, that labeling intelligence based on gender or race is "irrelevant and highly injurious." Through ethos by itself and a combination of ethos and logos, Gould successfully sways his audience away from previously accepted ideas that women are inferior to men.
In the beginning of the essay, Gould starts to build his ethos. In the first paragraph, he uses advanced scientific terminology such as the words "anthropometry" and "craniometry." After using each one, he defines the words in simpler terms so that the members of his audience that have no scientific background can understand. By defining the terms, Gould not only appears knowledgeable, but he shows that he took his audience into consideration. Demonstrating that his audience can trust him and can believe that his information is correct effectively builds his credibility and altogether strengthens his audience. Also, the fact that Gould gave background information about Paul Broca, one of his quoted scientists, gives the audience the impression that Gould did not gather his information from any random source and that his information in the essay is accurate. This effectively adds to his argument because the audience knows that Gould's essay is not based upon false information.
Throughout the essay, Gould builds his credibility with the use of logos. His logos works together with ethos to make him seem reliable to his audience. For example, Gould refuted Broca's data regarding the average weight of men and women's brains with his own data. Gould took other factors into consideration such as height and age to gather his evidence. According to Gould, Broca's women that he tested were older than the men, which means that their brain size has decreased with degenerative disease. Also, Broca's men he tested were half a foot taller than the women, which also has an effect on brain size. Gould stated that the average difference between men and women's brains according to Broca was 181 grams, but after re-calculating with the height and age in mind, the average difference was 113 grams. By proving to his audience that he put more thought into his data and was not biased toward the women he tested, Gould appears more reliable and trustworthy than Broca. This is effective because now the audience is more likely to believe Gould and agree with his claims. After reading about how much thought and work Gould put in to prove Broca wrong, I now view Gould as a more credible scientist. Being able to apply his knowledge of degenerative disease and height effects on brain size to his research and data between genders makes him come off as not only trustworthy, but knowledgeable about his subject matter as well.
With the rhetorical devices of ethos and logos, Gould presents his argument effectively to the audience. By using definitions, background information and quantitative data to improve his credibility, Gould convinced me that his data was overall more accurate and logical than Broca's. The fact that Gould remained as unbiased as possible throughout the essay and took factors into consideration that were undermining the brain size of women really told me that Gould is reasonable. Even though women were thought of as inferior at the time and that was the widely accepted belief, Gould found a way to refute the claim. In my opinion Gould effectively delivers his information through ethos and logos, which strengthens his argument and convinces me to agree with him.
In the beginning of the essay, Gould starts to build his ethos. In the first paragraph, he uses advanced scientific terminology such as the words "anthropometry" and "craniometry." After using each one, he defines the words in simpler terms so that the members of his audience that have no scientific background can understand. By defining the terms, Gould not only appears knowledgeable, but he shows that he took his audience into consideration. Demonstrating that his audience can trust him and can believe that his information is correct effectively builds his credibility and altogether strengthens his audience. Also, the fact that Gould gave background information about Paul Broca, one of his quoted scientists, gives the audience the impression that Gould did not gather his information from any random source and that his information in the essay is accurate. This effectively adds to his argument because the audience knows that Gould's essay is not based upon false information.
Throughout the essay, Gould builds his credibility with the use of logos. His logos works together with ethos to make him seem reliable to his audience. For example, Gould refuted Broca's data regarding the average weight of men and women's brains with his own data. Gould took other factors into consideration such as height and age to gather his evidence. According to Gould, Broca's women that he tested were older than the men, which means that their brain size has decreased with degenerative disease. Also, Broca's men he tested were half a foot taller than the women, which also has an effect on brain size. Gould stated that the average difference between men and women's brains according to Broca was 181 grams, but after re-calculating with the height and age in mind, the average difference was 113 grams. By proving to his audience that he put more thought into his data and was not biased toward the women he tested, Gould appears more reliable and trustworthy than Broca. This is effective because now the audience is more likely to believe Gould and agree with his claims. After reading about how much thought and work Gould put in to prove Broca wrong, I now view Gould as a more credible scientist. Being able to apply his knowledge of degenerative disease and height effects on brain size to his research and data between genders makes him come off as not only trustworthy, but knowledgeable about his subject matter as well.
With the rhetorical devices of ethos and logos, Gould presents his argument effectively to the audience. By using definitions, background information and quantitative data to improve his credibility, Gould convinced me that his data was overall more accurate and logical than Broca's. The fact that Gould remained as unbiased as possible throughout the essay and took factors into consideration that were undermining the brain size of women really told me that Gould is reasonable. Even though women were thought of as inferior at the time and that was the widely accepted belief, Gould found a way to refute the claim. In my opinion Gould effectively delivers his information through ethos and logos, which strengthens his argument and convinces me to agree with him.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Game, Set and Match (PB)
I'm sure almost everyone has seen a game of tennis, whether on television or in person. Most people are familiar with the steady bouncing of a tennis ball from court to court, the scuffing of feet to get to the ball and the noise of the ball as it is being hit by a racquet. Considering I have been playing for almost eight years this is my weekly, sometimes daily routine. Tennis has came to be not only a major part of my life, but a sport that I have grown to love.
For one thing, tennis requires you to always be thinking. What shot do I hit? Where do I hit the ball? How hard do I hit it? By asking yourself a series of questions, you can plan out your next shot. You may be thinking to yourself, "that's not so hard," but imagine asking yourself these questions before every shot you make. I have been in many long rallies myself, which means several shots are exchanged between opponents until the point is over. That requires a lot of thinking and strategizing in just one point! You have to think quickly in between shots, usually in a matter of seconds. It comes naturally after you've been playing for a while, but as a beginner it takes practice.
Something I've learned from my eight years of play is that tennis is all strategy after you've figured out the shots, which can take years. Once I started playing on the high school team, I picked up a lot of different strategies to use on the court. For example, I bet most people don't know that the best place to hit the ball is in the four corners of the court. This extensive thinking and strategizing is why I like tennis so much. It requires you to always be thinking. You can't just walk onto the court not knowing any strategy or having any clue what your game plan is. Trust me, I've been there. Learning and practicing new techniques to use on the court has always been so much fun for me. A strategy I learned from my coach that I use quite often is to pay attention to your opponent and figure out their weaker shot. Then, hit it to that side so that you have an advantage. The little things like that are what make tennis so interesting for me. There's always something new to learn.
Another part of tennis that is not easy is that you are always running on the court to get to the ball. That requires a lot of running. Believe me, I've experienced it. Those scorching hot conditioning days where all my teammates and I are struggling to run another lap are essential in being able to play a tennis match. Matches can last at least an hour and within that hour, there is a lot of running to get from side to side of the court. Suffering through the long two weeks of conditioning is worth it in the long run. Without it, I couldn't survive later in the season. Not that I necessarily like this part of tennis, but it is very beneficial for me. It increases my stamina, speed and quickness. As much as I hate running those grueling laps and sprinting through ladders numerous times, I feel accomplished. I love the fact that tennis forces me to get into better shape.
As the years go by and my skills with tennis develop, I find more reasons why tennis is not as easy as everyone thinks. Tennis is not just hitting a ball back and forth for what seems like hours. With my personal experiences, I know it's as difficult as the more common sports, such as football or soccer. It requires strategy, dedication and perseverance. Tennis has been a passion of mine for quite some time now for that reason and I plan to continue playing for as long as I live.
As the years have passed, of course I hear more criticism about tennis. Among the criticism, I mostly hear claims that tennis is "easy" and that it's "nothing more than hitting a ball back and forth over a net." Well, I can't argue that's not the main part of tennis. However, from my eight years of lessons and my three years of playing on the high school team, I can honestly say it's much more than that.
For one thing, tennis requires you to always be thinking. What shot do I hit? Where do I hit the ball? How hard do I hit it? By asking yourself a series of questions, you can plan out your next shot. You may be thinking to yourself, "that's not so hard," but imagine asking yourself these questions before every shot you make. I have been in many long rallies myself, which means several shots are exchanged between opponents until the point is over. That requires a lot of thinking and strategizing in just one point! You have to think quickly in between shots, usually in a matter of seconds. It comes naturally after you've been playing for a while, but as a beginner it takes practice.
Something I've learned from my eight years of play is that tennis is all strategy after you've figured out the shots, which can take years. Once I started playing on the high school team, I picked up a lot of different strategies to use on the court. For example, I bet most people don't know that the best place to hit the ball is in the four corners of the court. This extensive thinking and strategizing is why I like tennis so much. It requires you to always be thinking. You can't just walk onto the court not knowing any strategy or having any clue what your game plan is. Trust me, I've been there. Learning and practicing new techniques to use on the court has always been so much fun for me. A strategy I learned from my coach that I use quite often is to pay attention to your opponent and figure out their weaker shot. Then, hit it to that side so that you have an advantage. The little things like that are what make tennis so interesting for me. There's always something new to learn.
Another part of tennis that is not easy is that you are always running on the court to get to the ball. That requires a lot of running. Believe me, I've experienced it. Those scorching hot conditioning days where all my teammates and I are struggling to run another lap are essential in being able to play a tennis match. Matches can last at least an hour and within that hour, there is a lot of running to get from side to side of the court. Suffering through the long two weeks of conditioning is worth it in the long run. Without it, I couldn't survive later in the season. Not that I necessarily like this part of tennis, but it is very beneficial for me. It increases my stamina, speed and quickness. As much as I hate running those grueling laps and sprinting through ladders numerous times, I feel accomplished. I love the fact that tennis forces me to get into better shape.
As the years go by and my skills with tennis develop, I find more reasons why tennis is not as easy as everyone thinks. Tennis is not just hitting a ball back and forth for what seems like hours. With my personal experiences, I know it's as difficult as the more common sports, such as football or soccer. It requires strategy, dedication and perseverance. Tennis has been a passion of mine for quite some time now for that reason and I plan to continue playing for as long as I live.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
This is My Free Week!
Due to all of the studying, homework and projects I've had this week, I will not be posting a blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)