1. "It's possible, of course, that once a student reaches adolescence, those skills and habits are no longer teachable. It may be that, at that point, you either have them or you don't, and if you have them, you're likely to graduate from college, and if you don't, you're not."
2. The thought that certain people are born unfit for college and will never be fit for college is rather off putting. It seems discouraging to the students who don't fit those standards, to be told that they're simply not cut out for a higher education, and that any attempts to pursue one are destined to end in failure. It's this notion that is helping to foster apathy towards college in students.
3. I'm not smart. I'm clever, and that's about enough to convince people that I'm smart when I'm really, really not. College is for the hardworking, the focused, and the organized. Organized is not my middle name. It's Danger. Staying on top of things and keeping them straight in my head has never been my strong suit, and in college, you fly without a safety net. If you're disorganized, that's it for you. On paper, I seem like one of those people who just isn't graduation material. A lot of people in my life have accepted that, and for a while, so did I, but I think that people are always capable of change. They always have a chance to improve themselves and show the world that the statistics that classify them as dropouts are wrong.
4. There are examples of prominent and glaring contradictions to this belief, some of which were discussed later in the text, but what can be done to more greatly spread the truth that you cannot classify students with different skills as dropouts before they even begin?
Friday, March 8, 2013
Friday, March 1, 2013
Drive QCC
1. "Effort is one of the things that gives meaning to life. Effort means you care about something, that something is important to you and you are willing to work for it. It would be an impoverished existence if you were not willing to value things and commit yourself to working towards them."
2. Hard work sucks. There's no denying it. Yes, it's noble and respectable, but only because it's such a pain that the people who are able to stick it out and do it are, well, noble and respectable. A person's dedication will keep them on track when the going gets tough, but there is no dedication without motivation. Whether it be to solve a dire problem or simply to pursue one's own passions, strong enough motivation can convince someone to endure some remarkably frustrating periods of hard work, and then, there come the rewards. Still, even the time a person spends working toward their goals has its own reward. For all its frustrations, it is still the pursuit that excites us and entices us almost as much as the reward at the end of the tunnel, the primal thrill of the hunt, so to speak. Work was meant to be hard, and we were meant to endure it.
3. I am always working to improve myself, and trying to advance toward a career built around my passion for writing. It's a constant journey of reconstruction, reevaluation and exposure to criticism. In short, it's a pain, but it's what I love, and it's the promise of the end goal that keeps me going. Also, for all its pains, the work does have a certain pleasure to it. The thrill of the hunt. Hmm, I'm recycling analogies. I should work on that.
2. Hard work sucks. There's no denying it. Yes, it's noble and respectable, but only because it's such a pain that the people who are able to stick it out and do it are, well, noble and respectable. A person's dedication will keep them on track when the going gets tough, but there is no dedication without motivation. Whether it be to solve a dire problem or simply to pursue one's own passions, strong enough motivation can convince someone to endure some remarkably frustrating periods of hard work, and then, there come the rewards. Still, even the time a person spends working toward their goals has its own reward. For all its frustrations, it is still the pursuit that excites us and entices us almost as much as the reward at the end of the tunnel, the primal thrill of the hunt, so to speak. Work was meant to be hard, and we were meant to endure it.
3. I am always working to improve myself, and trying to advance toward a career built around my passion for writing. It's a constant journey of reconstruction, reevaluation and exposure to criticism. In short, it's a pain, but it's what I love, and it's the promise of the end goal that keeps me going. Also, for all its pains, the work does have a certain pleasure to it. The thrill of the hunt. Hmm, I'm recycling analogies. I should work on that.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Mindset QCC
1. "Bruce Jenner, 1976 Olympic gold medalist in the decathlon says, 'If I wasn't dyslexic, I probably wouldn't have won the Games. If I had been a better reader, then that would have come easily, sports would have come easily... and I never would have realized that the way you get ahead in life is hard work.'
The naturals, carried away by their superiority, don't learn how to work hard or how to cope with setbacks."
2. This quote carries with it a deep understanding of work ethic, determination, and the origins of motivation. It shows that people who face adversity in their lives are more likely to overcome obstacles than those unhindered by personal weaknesses or setbacks, the "naturals". In many ways, a person's handicap can inspire them work harder in pursuit of a goal, and enables them to process failure with the mindset to get up and try again, rather than falling apart from being built up for so long as a naturally capable winner. It keeps them humble and shields them from the corrosive nature of their own ego, forces them to constantly better themselves and work to be the best, rather than simply accepting that they were born the best and waiting for the success to come.
3. I've faced my own setbacks in life that prevent me from being classified as a "natural". I have dyscalculia, which has hindered me in math my entire life. I was ridiculed and humiliated in school, sometimes by my own teachers, for being unable to comprehend basic mathematical reasoning beyond multiplication. I didn't realize it until I neared maturity, but that weakness in math had made me a better writer, and (on some level) a better person. Writing came naturally to me. That was my innate skill. But if math had come as easily to me as other students, I never would have been forced to focus more on the subjects that I could do, and even more so on the ones I was passionate about. I would've grown up to be a passable writer, enough to get good grades across the board, but I never would have gained the passion to develop my craft outside of school, to dedicate my life to the pursuit of becoming better and better at it. I simply would have been... good enough, just as I would be good enough at math. In fact, if I hadn't been brought down to earth by the shame of my severe academic shortcomings, I very likely would have ended up mocking those who struggled in English and creative writing. Knowing all this, I can honestly say that if I given a chance to go back and live my life over, with the ability to understand and retain math concepts at the same level as my classmates, to avoid humiliating displays of my ignorance at the front of the class, to never be mocked by students who considered themselves geniuses when compared to me, to never be shamed with trips to summer school where they taught me every subject on phonetic notecards like a brain damaged toddler, I would refuse.
The naturals, carried away by their superiority, don't learn how to work hard or how to cope with setbacks."
2. This quote carries with it a deep understanding of work ethic, determination, and the origins of motivation. It shows that people who face adversity in their lives are more likely to overcome obstacles than those unhindered by personal weaknesses or setbacks, the "naturals". In many ways, a person's handicap can inspire them work harder in pursuit of a goal, and enables them to process failure with the mindset to get up and try again, rather than falling apart from being built up for so long as a naturally capable winner. It keeps them humble and shields them from the corrosive nature of their own ego, forces them to constantly better themselves and work to be the best, rather than simply accepting that they were born the best and waiting for the success to come.
3. I've faced my own setbacks in life that prevent me from being classified as a "natural". I have dyscalculia, which has hindered me in math my entire life. I was ridiculed and humiliated in school, sometimes by my own teachers, for being unable to comprehend basic mathematical reasoning beyond multiplication. I didn't realize it until I neared maturity, but that weakness in math had made me a better writer, and (on some level) a better person. Writing came naturally to me. That was my innate skill. But if math had come as easily to me as other students, I never would have been forced to focus more on the subjects that I could do, and even more so on the ones I was passionate about. I would've grown up to be a passable writer, enough to get good grades across the board, but I never would have gained the passion to develop my craft outside of school, to dedicate my life to the pursuit of becoming better and better at it. I simply would have been... good enough, just as I would be good enough at math. In fact, if I hadn't been brought down to earth by the shame of my severe academic shortcomings, I very likely would have ended up mocking those who struggled in English and creative writing. Knowing all this, I can honestly say that if I given a chance to go back and live my life over, with the ability to understand and retain math concepts at the same level as my classmates, to avoid humiliating displays of my ignorance at the front of the class, to never be mocked by students who considered themselves geniuses when compared to me, to never be shamed with trips to summer school where they taught me every subject on phonetic notecards like a brain damaged toddler, I would refuse.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Leibniz QCC
1. "As Spinoza said in another context, "What St. Paul tells us about God tells us more about St. Paul than it does about God." The growth of empiricism and the rise of science over the past three centuries have made it almost impossible to take seriously the extravagant pretension of the priori philosopher, who sits in his study and spins a web of words, fanciful imaginings, and empty speculations out of the material of his own consciousness. Faith in reason alone is alien to us, and we believe that only careful observation and experiment can reveal anything of substance about the actual universe. We no longer study philosophy for the old reason, for the fascination of learning the truth about the nature of things, but rather, for the fascination of learning what people have thought, and if possible why they have thought."
2. I found this quote to be an interesting look at the nature of philosophy and its changing role in society. It's something that I've never spent too much time pondering, but it makes me realize that philosophy, while once used to enlighten people and introduce them to the truth of the world around them, is now used to introduce people to different perspectives and understanding of the world around them in the hope of adapting that perspective into their own.
3. Whether or not we buy from the philosophy shelf at Barnes & Noble (or we don't buy from Barnes & Noble at all), we are taking in philosophy. When we read a work of fiction, it is introducing to us bits and pieces of the author's own philosophy. Meaningful proverbs such as, "the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword," can be extracted from A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin. A person's memoirs give us their philosophy through the sharing of experiences. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are sharing their philosophies twenty-two minutes a day, five days a week, albeit laden with sarcasm and satire. It's all around us, and it isn't made to show us something new about the world. It's made to maybe help us see what we have all our lives in a different way.
2. I found this quote to be an interesting look at the nature of philosophy and its changing role in society. It's something that I've never spent too much time pondering, but it makes me realize that philosophy, while once used to enlighten people and introduce them to the truth of the world around them, is now used to introduce people to different perspectives and understanding of the world around them in the hope of adapting that perspective into their own.
3. Whether or not we buy from the philosophy shelf at Barnes & Noble (or we don't buy from Barnes & Noble at all), we are taking in philosophy. When we read a work of fiction, it is introducing to us bits and pieces of the author's own philosophy. Meaningful proverbs such as, "the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword," can be extracted from A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin. A person's memoirs give us their philosophy through the sharing of experiences. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are sharing their philosophies twenty-two minutes a day, five days a week, albeit laden with sarcasm and satire. It's all around us, and it isn't made to show us something new about the world. It's made to maybe help us see what we have all our lives in a different way.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Bryson Chapter 5 QCC
1. "One of the better early attempts at dating the planet came from the ever-reliable Edmond
Halley, who in 1715 suggested that if you divided the total amount of salt in the world’s seas
by the amount added each year, you would get the number of years that the oceans had been
in existence, which would give you a rough idea of Earth’s age. The logic was appealing, but
unfortunately no one knew how much salt was in the sea or by how much it increased each
year, which rendered the experiment impracticable."
2. It's interesting to see earlier attempts to determine the answers to the questions that have surrounded us since our beginning. Some can be looked upon as innocent misfires brought about by a time of lesser knowledge and understanding. Others, however, mark a tremendous undertaking of thought and, despite their misguided method, prove a great leap forward in reasoning and logical analysis. This, at least to me, appears to be one of the latter.
3. This passage brings to mind several early attempts to understand the way of the world. For example, the belief that the Sun moves relative to the Earth, explaining why it moved in the sky while Earth appeared to remain in one place. However, it is a considerably more advanced hypothesis, and, if not for the limitations of the time, wholly plausible to execute. Analysis of hypotheses such as these throughout time can demonstrate our evolution as a intellectually curious and logical species.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Bryson Reading QCCQ
1. "Now, the question that has occurred to all of us at some point is: what would happen if you traveled out to the edge of the universe and, as it were, put your head through the curtains? Where would your head be if it were no longer in the universe? What would you find beyond? The answer, disappointingly, is that you can never get to the edge of the universe."
2. The possibility of finding an end to the seemingly limitless size of the universe has no doubt captivated scientists and civilians alike for years, but its unfathomable breadth renders it absolutely impossible to travel, even if there was a perceivable end to it, which there clearly is not. The simple fact is that, if you were to reach an end to the whole of existence, you would have nowhere to go. There is nothing to find outside of everything, as my best attempt at an intelligent summary would put it. You would merely find yourself back at the start. There is no edge to the universe because, in order for there to be an edge, there must be something beyond it.
3. In many ways, this quote represents our curiosity as a species. We will always strive to discover what lies beyond our perceptions, and there will always be more to uncover. The universe will never run out of things to show us, and we will never run out of curiosity as to what those things are. There is no end, no limit, no conclusion. There is only the continued pursuit of higher understanding.
4. My question, much like the one young Bill Bryson had when reading a science textbook, is, "How do they know that?" How could we possibly know for certain the nature of something that lies quadroumptillionths (that's the technical term, take notes, kids) of miles away, farther than we could ever hope to reach? How do we know that there isn't simply a membrane at the end of the universe, and beyond it is another universe? I'm not advocating such theories or attempting to present them as the truth, because quite frankly, they're probably wrong. I'm merely asking, how do we KNOW that they're wrong?
2. The possibility of finding an end to the seemingly limitless size of the universe has no doubt captivated scientists and civilians alike for years, but its unfathomable breadth renders it absolutely impossible to travel, even if there was a perceivable end to it, which there clearly is not. The simple fact is that, if you were to reach an end to the whole of existence, you would have nowhere to go. There is nothing to find outside of everything, as my best attempt at an intelligent summary would put it. You would merely find yourself back at the start. There is no edge to the universe because, in order for there to be an edge, there must be something beyond it.
3. In many ways, this quote represents our curiosity as a species. We will always strive to discover what lies beyond our perceptions, and there will always be more to uncover. The universe will never run out of things to show us, and we will never run out of curiosity as to what those things are. There is no end, no limit, no conclusion. There is only the continued pursuit of higher understanding.
4. My question, much like the one young Bill Bryson had when reading a science textbook, is, "How do they know that?" How could we possibly know for certain the nature of something that lies quadroumptillionths (that's the technical term, take notes, kids) of miles away, farther than we could ever hope to reach? How do we know that there isn't simply a membrane at the end of the universe, and beyond it is another universe? I'm not advocating such theories or attempting to present them as the truth, because quite frankly, they're probably wrong. I'm merely asking, how do we KNOW that they're wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)