Saturday, May 26, 2007

Kelsey Webb
Thursday, May 17

As students, we are valued by our finals, grade point averages, and letters that range from A to F. Most students will be able to tell you what percent their final was worth before they can remember what was on the final exam.
Paul Goodman, Howard Gardner, and Diane Ravitch discuss the system of testing and its flaws. Goodman states that "A good teacher can recognize the situation [of a qualified student flunking], but the computer wreaks its will." Goodman points out that the testing system as evolved but not enough. He concludes that grading should be abolished and testing should be used "only and entirely for pedagogic purposes as teachers see fit." I agree with the statement that teachers should be used to determine the quality and ability of a student, not a computer or a standardized exam. However, teachers must be qualified to make the assumption.
Gardner also finds flaws in the testing system, specifically with the time allotted for tests. He asks that every student be allowed extra time if they want it, not matter what their disability. Despite his assumptions and evidence, he received response letters both against and for his point of view. Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. makes a valid point that the standardized tests measure the "student's ability to perform under pressure." Garver Moore brings the harsh side to the issue by stating boldly that these types of tests, specifically the SAT, is not meant to make the test-takers feel good. Beyond the negativity, I really related to Janet Rudolph's comments. She is right; humans are not clones of each other, but are unique and talented in a variety of ways. "We humans do not fit into standardized boxes..."
Ravitch takes the alternative view point by defending tests. She agrees that the system is not perfect, by stating that tests used today “often rely too much on multiple-choice questions, which encourage guessing rather than thinking.” However, she stresses the importance of testing teachers as well. Ravitch uses the analogy of pushing someone into a deep pool before teaching them to swim is just the same as passing students that are unable to read or write. Tests are a way to ensure that a student is qualified to succeed to the next level of education.
The authors each make valid points, whether they are for or against implementing tests to students. I can’t say that I agree with one author completely, but rather with parts of each. Timing can put too much pressure on students, but how else can standards be used? Basically, tests need to be used to create qualified individuals. As a student pursuing a law degree, I want to be able to perform my job the correct way and I want to work with other qualified professionals. From the defendant’s point of view, I would not want to be represented by someone that skipped law school or failed their LSAT. My suggestion to the ideas on testing is to allow tests to change. The College Board should be considering alternative methods, maybe an ACT that isn’t entirely multiple choices. Perhaps the Writing Test (currently optional) should be required. Students need to be able to think before simply guessing A, B, C, or D.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Bok Summary

Well, everybody seemed to agree that freedom of speech was an important issue in the Bok essay. The fact that some things are offensive but are still protected by the First Amendment was a point that we all agreed upon. I personally agree with Bok that we should not censor but should educate and persuade people to be more conscientious about what we communicate into the surrounding world.

In writing my summary, I attempted to find something in each paragraph to include in my summary. I think that I hope that I was successful although I was not able to keep things in order.

Discussing Lawrence III Summary

Summaries are a good way to condense information so that one can understand it better. Summaries are also a good tool to use when one will have to go back and review what they have read. A summary can remind a person of what they have read without having to reread the whole essay or text again. However, if someone else reads a summary will that person get the real idea of what the writer of the summary gathered from the author of the text? One must remember that a summary doesn’t contain the important facts an author used, or their personality.

I believe that everyone who summarized a certain piece would write something completely different. Each person would pick out a different important point from the writing or from an individual paragraph. Everyone’s interpretation of what they read would also be unique. In the essay by Lawrence III, some people might have ventured to say that he thought racism should not be protected under the 1st Amendment, whereas I gathered from what he said that he believed it should be protected. These differences in the way the essay was read could have depended on who read it. Culture, race, gender, and other such factors could determine how someone reads something whose topic is so touchy. If a person has never experienced racism or racial speech, they may read the essay as having no need for protection because they may not understand how it can affect someone. People who have come in contact with racism or racial issues may see the need of protection and would have read the essay for the need for protection.

When a person is reviewing a summary someone has written, it is only fair to the author the piece being summarized that the reviewer is also given a copy of the original piece to conclude from it what he or she wants. Although, I do feel that the main idea of an essay would be communicated through a summary, the ways a person came to this conclusion might differ. Because of this if a person did not read the actual essay they might be confused as to what the author actually meant. Something that a person writes to remind them of what was written in a text may differ completely from how someone else might remember what was written.

Overall summaries are very useful. They can be used for studying, remembering, or even reviewing a piece of literature. An author may even go through and summarize his or her own work to make sure that they have the main ideas covered that they wanted to cover. However, no matter how useful summaries are, one has to be careful how he or she uses a summary so as not to shadow everything that the author is trying to portray. Also, even though a summary can be useful, it is not a substitute for actually reading the text.

Comparing the Summaries of Bok

All four of our summaries on Bok included how free speech is important, but yet hard to tell when there should be a line drawn. We all agreed on the fact that the Confederate flag is very offensive and it opened much discussion on the First Amendment. We all may have worded our summaries differently, but all discussed the fact how the Harvard officials handled the situation in a well manner.

Us writers wrote each of our summaries a little differently. One person included more information about how the situation was handled than I did. I wrote more on what the free speech covers in our country. Some other person discussed the fact of the battle of free speech on college campuses. I included those items, but wanted a more developed summary with details of each part of the essay; I tried to give a brief look at what Bok said in each paragraph.

Everyone has different ideas with this situation Bok wrote about. I could tell who found what most important in the Bok essay. I looked at the fact how free speech is not the same on private campuses as it is on public ones. Yet, all of us that wrote on Bok, I noticed it was almost like an editorial, which is okay because everyone has their own opinion. We are all entitled to our own opinions, that makes us individuals.

Comparison of Bok Summaries

After comparing my summary of Derek Bok's essay "Protecting Freedom of Expression on the campus" with three other students in the class, Kathryn Rupp, Melanie Woldt, and Brenda Porter, I have noticed that, while many of the interpretations of Boks origninal essay are different, the main idea of the summaries are the same. This is essential in knowing that the essay was interpereted as the author had intended.



When comparing each students summaries paragraph by paragraph all of our major points, although worded differently, were consisted in context. Porters paragraph summary was slightly more detailed and in depth than the others but when reading through all of them separately the essay overall came across the same. I did notice, however, that Porter's summary was more consistent on the topic of freedom of speech and did not focus as much on racial issues. Kathryn Rupp's summary came off as more in support of how freedom of speech affects others rather than what is more lawful. I felt that Melanie Woldt's summary was a good mix of both and did the essay justice.


I found after reading my summary and comparing it to three others that there were key points that each one of us missed, but they all came to the same conclusion. If we had all worked together to combine our ideas into one summary it would have shown thorough details and had every main point highlighted. It is interesting to see how each person interperets the same essay in their own way. Everyone read the article and wrote summaries that varied in length, context, and wording, but no matter what the main idea of the summaries was consistent with Bok's original essay.

Bok Summary Comparision

Taylor Effling
25 May 07

When writing my summary about Derek Bok’s, "Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus", I tried to keep in mind the ideas that make up a good a summary. According to the text book a good summary should not contain ideas other than those found in the original piece and should give the reader a sense of the context of the original piece. These rules for writing the summary seemed difficult to follow at times, because when different people read the same piece they usually have a different perspective about the piece and what the main idea is that the author is trying to express to his audience. In this essay I will compare and contrast the different ways in which my classmates and I chose to summarize this article.

When reading through my classmates summaries, I chose to compare the essays of Beth Guthmiller, Laura Lukes, and Michael Noel with mine. Right away I noticed that all three of them chose to include that the items of controversy were a confederate flag and swastika. This information does help to clearly define the particular problem that Harvard experienced. I chose to omit this information as I felt that Bok’s main point was the dilemma all universities and communities face when trying to promote free speech while preventing any and all offensive material that insults or upsets certain members of the perceptive communities. All of us agreed that trying to determine what materials are offensive and should be banned is difficult to do without encroaching on the right of freedom of speech. We all combined the paragraphs differently when writing the first summary. Michael and mine were combined the most similarly and shared many of the same points. We both mentioned the issue of censorship, which Beth and Laura did not. Maybe the reason is that we are both males and have the same train of thought, no offense to the girls in any way. Beth wrote a separate point for each paragraph, while the rest of us combined some of the paragraphs. It is interesting to see how different people combine paragraphs while others see them as separate points. Also everyone seemed to write their whole essay summaries different. Some chose to follow their paragraph by paragraph summaries conclusively while others introduced new information into this summary. Some followed the order of their first summary while others combined the points into a new order when writing their paragraph summary.

Everyone had their own style of summarizing this article. Even though each person had a different perception about the essay, we all seemed to arrive at basically the same conclusion. Sometimes, just the way in which someone writes something can give the reader a different feeling about the essay. Summarizing should not be an editorial exercise, you should try very hard not to include any personal opinions within the summary’s context, which sometimes is hard not to. It is not ethical to take someone else’s ideas and claim them as your own, or to question their ideas when you’re simply summarizing their essay. I think many times people do take what others write and put a twist on it to support what they are trying to say. Again, I do not know if this is ethical or not, but it does happen.

A Threat?

I read summaries by written by Matthew Smith, Suzannah Bryan, and Kristin Gebel. There were very close similarities with the paragraph by paragraph summaries. We all saw the article in similar ways. When it came down to the individual paragraph summaries, we each saw a different twist. While one highlighted the need for careful word interpretation, another talked about the very meaning of the First Amendment. It is very hard to be unbiased and write down the facts as we “see” them. The very meaning of being human is to be unique. To approach the summary paragraph by paragraph is the best way, as I see it, to be as unbiased as we can.
I agree that the Porn industry exploits women. I also believe that porn exploits men. I have a very hard time hearing that it just exploits women. I do agree that there are hundreds of thousands of women and men used and thrown away each year. Porn not only is addictive but can lead to other crimes. I’m not saying that porn causes them or that if there was no porn we wouldn’t have crime. I’m just saying that porn can be a strong gateway to other, more serious things. In an interview with Jeffery Dollmer on Dateline NBC, he was asked what made him cross the line between fantasy and reality. He related that it was porn. When it wasn’t enough he had to get a bigger thrill. He also related that his fantasies started when he was 9 years old after finding a porn magazine. I know that there were other factors that lead him down that road but the fact still remains that porn had a very big, negative effect on his life and many others.
I believe that in order for us to have and enjoy the very freedom that we fought for we must compromise some things, i.e. to allow the production of porn at all. Since we have porn production, there must be some restrictions on distributation, viewing, and producing. If we did completely stop the production of porn we would undercut the rights this Nation stands for.

Summary of Bok's Essay Overview

After reviewing summaries of Derek Bok’s essay written by Michael Noel, Taylor Effling, and Beth Guthmiller, it is obvious that we all share the same basic concept of the piece. What is more interesting is the fact that each of us was given the same information, but each summary varied in tone and perspective. Most of all, this illustrated to me that interpretation is as unique as the individual.

In reference to perspective, Effling and I both choose the gereral overall idea Bok was making about freedom of speech. Noel and Guthmiller had a more specific approach by citing more facts from the essay including information about the incident at Harvard and the hanging of the flags. Overall we all had the same basic understanding of the concept but in choosing to write from different perspectives, we each put our own “spin” on it.

For example, I choose to leave out the specifics of the Harvard flag hanging. By doing that my summary approaches the subject of freedom of speech applied to all situations in general. Noel and Guthmiller both choose to include the flag hanging making their summaries more focused on the university and how freedom of speech be handled on that level. All the summaries I read made it clear to me that we all understood what was being said. The differences in the summaries made me expand my own thoughts and think about how I view the world compared to those around me. That got me excited. Without variety, life would be pretty boring.

Summaries in themselves are basically editorials of the reader’s interpretation. There really isn’t any one correct response although basic concepts should be apparent, such as the subject, and in this case it was freedom of speech. The rest depends on how each person views the world and what is priority to them as well as their own thinking style. I myself like to look at the broad view of the world. Others style is more focused on specifics. One thing is certain, whether we think in macros or micros our thoughts are as individual as we are.

Brenda Porter
May 25, 2007

Expanded Summary of Browmiller

Sara Tillman
May 25, 2007

Brownmiller's piece was very interesting, but more interesting then her piece are the different views of my classmates. I reviewed Kristin Gebel, Matt Smith, and Kaleena Damm's summaries of Brownmiller. As I read each piece I found similarities and differences to mine. We all seemed to agree with the fact that there is a fine line between what is art and what is porn. Also, we all mentioned the three part plan, but some choose to elaborate on this point and some merely mentioned it. However, we all seemed to have a little different view on the first amendment.


Kristin Gebel emphasized the fact that she disagreed with the obscenity that can be produced in the porn industry, but gave partial blame to the fact that the first amendment is too vague. It was obvious in her summary that she agreed with Brownmiller. She even wrote that "women's right are being violated in the porn industry" as if this is something that she is passionate about.


I thought that Matt Smith brought up and interesting point when he disagreed with Brownmiller views according to the government mandating the porn industry closer. He believes that the government should not have control over the porn industry because that would be one more thing that they have control over. I don't necessarily agree, but I like the fact that he dared to disagree. He also elaborated on the three part plan in his summary like another student in the class, Kaleena Damm. I felt like Matt was standing up for the men of this article, which he should in a way. This article does seem to attach men as if there is no male porn. Why do we constantly accuse men of "degrading women" as Brownmiller said in her writing, yet we fail to look at the other side of the issue. I think it is very interesting that the three girls agreed with Brownmiller, and the one boy disagreed. I think we are all bias to our sex?

Like Matt Smith, Kaleena Damm wrote about the 3 part plan not being an effective way to rate porn. However, Kaleena agrees with Brownmiller that women's right are being violated in the porn industry. She also agree that "porn should be taken to the legislature", as she said in the closing sentence of her summary.



All four students came to the same conclusion that the porn industry may go too far sometimes and when this happens people get offended. However, we all all choose to express this in many different way. Some agreed very strongly with Brownmiller, some understood what she was fighting for, and some even disagreed with her. Nevertheless, we all stood up for what we believed is right.

Summary Comparisons

Kristin Gebel
5/25/07

After rereading my summary and then the summaries of others I found that we were all basically leading to the same point that there needs to be something done about pornography distribution. I read through the summaries of Suzannah Bryan, Sara Tillman and Matt Smith. All three of the summaries had their own twist to them. When discussing a topic such as this it is hard not to have a voice. I think in each paragraph by paragraph summary we all included roughly the same information. Some added a few more facts from the text than others, but for the most part they were quite similar.
When reading through the second half of the summaries I found quite a few differences. Some leaned toward Brownmiller’s side of going to the government and the courts to restrict the distribution. Whereas others included the facts but then gave different ideas than Brownmiller’s.
For example, when Brownmiller included that “hardcore” pornography was represented as rape and torture, one author disagreed and thought that her ideas where being stretched to the limits. These kinds of ideas give the summaries a different spin to how the problem should be solved.
Reading back through my summary I found the second half to be more or less blunt and to the point of what exactly Brownmiller was trying to point out. I realize now after reading a few others’ summaries that I need to include a bit more facts and ideas into my short summary. This will help the readers to get a better idea of the author’s point of view. I think the biggest thing to work on would be to answer the question “why?”. Such things as “why did the author include these details?” or “why does the author feel this way about this topic?”. With these questions answered in my next summary, I think readers will be able to better grasp on the meaning of the entire article that was read.

Pornography; First Amendment Right or First Amendment Abuse?

While Pornography is racy, provocative, and for the most part a taboo of our society, does pornography itself violate first amendment rights? Or does the display and distribution of it do this?

I enjoyed reading Suzanna, Kaleena's, and Sara's summaries on this and can see in many ways how we hit on the same note and also how we viewed it very differently. Part of this I'm going to venture to say is based on gender. It is impossible for me to view certain topics as them and completely see eye to eye. What I can do is respect and try and understand different points of views.

As a society I believe we must be careful with our choice of words when using them to identify a certain topic. Rape and torture are illegal acts and we must be careful about associating these with pornography. It is important that pornography is kept out of uninvited sight, especially that of children. This makes it important that the government control the distribution and delivery methods of pornographic material. I agree with Suzannah that we must be careful of how much government control we allow into our lives though, to allow too much would surely slowly open the door to more restrictions on our current freedoms.

I think that it would be impossible to summarize anything and not consider it an editorial of some sort or put some spin on it. What is important is that we keep the original authors perspective in sight and not twist or distort it. As I read through the different summaries, most everyone did add a different spin to the article. You can contribute a fair amount of this to different backgrounds, genders, and beliefs. What is important is that we all are able to read these with open minds and try and consider each individuals point of view.

Matthew Smith

Summary of Bok

I wrote my original summary of Derek Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” essay. I reread my summary, along with Laura Lukes’, Brenda Porter’s, and Beth Guthmiller’s summaries. I noticed similarities between our summaries, along with a few differences. I noticed that all four of the summaries had the general idea of the original essay, however, each person has put her own ‘spin’ on the summary.
Each summary mentioned the First Amendment, which is Freedom of Speech, but not all of the summaries mentioned the examples that were used in Bok’s essay. Laura and Beth both made some mention of the two Harvard students hanging the Confederate flag, while Brenda and I left that out. Beth mentions that the public universities versus the private universities deal with this differently, but the rest of us did not mention the public vs. private scenario. All four of us did mention that the best way to handle such situations is to educate the offender(s) and encourage him or her or them to change his or her or their behaviors.
Brenda made an interesting comment on how “Prohibiting these acts even though they are offensive only adds to the publicity the offenders are trying to provoke.” I hadn’t thought of that. I noticed that she was the only one who did make mention of that. I suppose that all the offenders really want is publicity and attention.
While all of us summarized the same essay, we each put in our own spin on the article. I believe this is due to the fact that each of us has a unique writing style. I noticed that even though each of us summarized the same essay, each one of us got something different out of the overall piece. We interpreted which parts were most important differently. This is portrayed through Beth’s and Laura’s summary including the Harvard students, but Brenda and I not including it in our summaries. It is interesting to see the different ways we interpret each article differently. Each person takes something different from the article. There is also the difference of length involved. Each person summarized the essay differently, some with more words, others with less. Each person used her own words to portray the significant information. While Beth and Brenda expressed their ideas short and sweet and to the point, Laura and I wrote longer summaries. All four of the articles are summarized differently, yet all of them portray the same information.

summary of freedom of speech

I was pretty amazed at the similarity in the reviews. Doing a paragraph by paragraph summary really helps to put the author's points into view. I summarized Bok and looked at other summaries by Porter, Noel, and Guthmiller.
The short summaries were a little different. Brenda Porter's summary didn't mention racism or the Confederate flag. She focused more on the community's feelings. Michael Noel focused on the right of a private university to take down the flags if they so pleased. He felt that a university is the same throughout the US. Why should it be different at Harvard? Beth Guthmiller put her focus on the the First Amendment regarding free speech. My summary was most similar to Guthmiller's.
The paragraph summaries were almost identical and the short summaries had different points of view from the same review. It seems that people can read the same review and come up with different main points. Each individual can put their own spin on the review. I focused on the point that while freedom of speech may be offensive to some, it is necessary not to censor any of it. Summaries can be very helpful when forming comprehensive arguments to support what you believe.

free speech and the slippery slope

I read three other summaries by Kaleena, Brian and Sara. The three longer summaries were all very similar, but the shorter summaries included slightly more spin. In the paragraph by paragraph summary we all saw the article in similar ways. In the shorter summaries we each highlighted certain aspects of the article by what we left out and how we paraphrased Brownmiller's arguments. In the future when I need to make an unbiased summary I think I will approach the summary paragraph by paragraph.
This article was very difficult to summarize without bias. I agree that the Porn industry exploits women's bodies. For every Jenna Jamison there are hundreds of young women who are abused and discarded by the industry. I really do not understand the thrill of porn, it is not a part of my life. I personally and I am grateful that there are restrictions on the distribution of porn. We already restrict free speech on the radio, the FCC doesn't allow swearing and can fine stations that disobey. We restrict sexual material on network TV during prime time. I have no ethical dilemma with government restrictions on distribution.
However-I believe that it is not the government or the court's right to restrict artistic freedom. The slippery slope begins with restrictions on porn and then opens the doors to further restrictions on artistic license. I support the right of film makers to produce porn and the government's right to restrict the distribution of obscene materials. The first amendment protects the Artist as well as the political dissident. Both should be free to express themselves without fear of of the government.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

The First Amendment: Our Right to Free Speech (And Writing this Blog)

While many people believe that saying what they want and doing what they want at any time is their right, it's not always the most decent or courteous thing to do. I analyzed the three summaries done by Matthew Smith, Sara Tillman, and Suzannah Bryan. We all incorporated the use of obscenity that was strongly emphasized in Susan Brownmiller's article. However, some of us went about and dug deeper with the subject in a different way. I noticed that Matt and I were on the same lines in regards to how we interpreted the paper in a lot of ways. Our summary's were similar in context, but being that he is male (and that is meant in no way to be offensive to him) I feel that he took Susan's judgement and idea of women's bodies being violated and defined as rape or torture in pornography in a different way that I did. Suzannah and Sara's anlysises seemed to be along the same guidlines as well, seeing as to how they definitely pointed out and summarized the key points to the paper.

I always have enjoyed debating and listening to others' analysises and ideas in regards to certain topics, especially those that incorporate events and ideas based on everyday life. We are all entitled to our own opinion and interpretation about issues, and because of that I strongly respect each's ideas and opinions. I don't feel that any of us had much of a difference put into our articles about our summaries, other than Matt's opinions about women's violations in pornography at the end of his summary. Because of this, my opinion has not changed in regards to how I interpretted the article. Because it is a summary, we are taking what we learn and know and putting it into our own words, which does allow for us to have a voice of our own, and in a sense the paper does become an editorial. I don't just believe that because it is put into our own words, but because we are publishing it here on the internet where my fellow classmates can read it if they wish to do so.

All in all, I firmly believe that life, events, and issues are almost all based on a matter of opinion and interpretation. We all have choices to make, goals in mind, and rules to follow. It's how we choose what to do with those rights and choices that allows us to get where we want in life. Summarizing papers such as Susan Brownmiller's and having the opportunity to read others' views and ideas helps to strengthen our knowledge and interpretation to the world around us, opening up another door or window of opportunity.

Expanded summary of Bok

When more than one person summarizes the same essay, a different "spin" can be put on each person's summary. Even though most ideas are summarized the same, every person puts a voice of their own to their summary. When reading other summaries of fellow classmates, I found that among them were some similarities in ideas, differences in the way the paragraphs were organized and talked about, and different voices. I chose to read the summaries of Beth Guthmiller, Brenda Porter, and Melanie Woldt.
After reading all of the summaries, I noticed that we all had a good idea of what was being discussed, and nothing seemed too confusing. All of the summaries includuded information on offensive things that happen and how they are still protected by the First Amendment. We all discussed how there needs to be a balance between free speech and racial tension. We also all mentioned that in order to make things better, people who do insensitive acts need to be ifgnored and educated.
In addition to the similarites, the summaries all had their differences. One thing I noticed is that Melanie's summary didn't mention that the offensive symbol was the Confederate flag. This enabled her audience to relate to all offensive material, racial or not. Another thing I noticed was that Beth's summary didn't include anything about censorship and the extent to which something is offensive. And finally, Brenda related the incident of the Confederate flag to everyday situations and other insensitive acts that can take place outside of universities. Even though some information was left out, all of the summaries were tied together well.
When taking into consideration all of the similarities and differences, I realized that even though we all summarized the same essay, a different voice was put on each one. Beth's summary along with Brenda's states how Bok is protecting free speech and expression on the campus of Harvard. Melanie points out how Bok is writing about the balance between free speech and racial tension. Finally, mine includes that Bok's argument is about censorship on free speech.
All four summaries included a lot of the same information, which is a good thing. Summarizing a sholarly essay means noticing the important points and stating those in a very short version of the essay. Summarizing a work should not include one's own ideas, because it is not ethical to make someone's ideas your own.

Expansion of Summary

A summary should not contain ideas other than those found in the original piece and should give the reader nothing but a sense of the original piece.

Comparing my summary with those of the three other students, I found four areas in which each one of us emphasized. These included, Harvard and many other institutions have a problem about how to balance the protection of free speech and student rights; restrictions placed on freedom of speech, even though offensive to many, often creates more problems than it solves because more attention is focused on the issue and other means of being disrespectful can be used; censorship is difficult when used to evaluate the offensiveness or the value since the messages are subjective and values differ among individuals; and education, reasoning, or ignoring offensive material is preferable to prohibiting it.

Each student I compared my essay with went through each paragraph the same as I had, so our summaries were all comparable. One summary painted out that the hanging of the Confederate flag may have been out of pride and not meant as the affront in which it was taken.

The summaries were all very similar and any variation was mostly how condensed or unabridged the content was. Each of the four conveyed the same meaning.

When summarizing an article it is imperative not to editorialize or put a certain “spin” on the article to change the original author’s intent. Summarizing is not meant to be an editorial and to do so would be unethical because the original idea would be altered.

Response to Summary

I wrote my original summary about Derek Bok's, "Protecting Freedom of Expression on the campus." After rereading my summary I read Michael Noel, Brittany Lake, and Taylor Effling's summaries. As I read through them I noticed similarities as well as differences. I also noticed that with each summary I got a good idea of what the article was about.
Between all four of our summaries i found more similarities than differences. We all had basically the same ideas for each paragraph. We all addressed the problems universities have with maintaining free speech, yet limiting racial tension. Also, we all mentioned that it is difficult to censor one thing, and not another. We all wrote how Bok felt personally on the matter, ignore and educate.
Some of the differences that i noticed, started on the second paragraph. Taylor mentioned boundaries of freedom of speech, and Michael mentioned the Confederate flag and swastika. I had not mentioned these yet. In the fifth paragraph Brittany mentioned the Confederate Flag as a symbol of Southern Pride. All three, in the ninth paragraph, mentioned private institutions and their rights, I did not mention this at all. I also noticed that Taylor's summary did not mention the Confederate flag, or the swastika. I liked that, because it leads the reader to assume what the offensive material was.
While reading the three summaries i did not get different ideas of the article. All three were well written and had good information in them. However, i could see how someone could "spin" an article with a summary. It would be easy, but i would hope that ethically, that that would not happen in the real world.

Freedom Of Spech

Laura Lukes
May 24, 2007

Bok wrote about Freedom of speech and how people abuse it. When those kids hung a Confederate Flag up, they were just showing what they believe in, but when that kid displayed a swasitika he was just doing it to retaliate. But i believe people have the right to preach about whatever they believe in, as long as it does not affect anyone else's beliefs. The Universities cannot tell the students what is right and what is wrong because they are going to find a way around it. Just like if a persontell someone that the plates is hot, they are going to test it out for themselves anyway no matter what. If something bothers a person that someone else does, try to ignore it. They are either trying to get a person fired up or trying to make a statement. Why keep pushing something that would only make the situation worse? Another good point Bok made was to tell the person why it is a problem. Letting a person know how you feel about a situation is a good way to communite your side of things as well, without the disbutes.
~Laura

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The Value of Tests (continued)

Response letters to Howard Gardner were from four people. Thomas M. Johnson stated how he thinks that Gardner ignores the fact that timed tests show how well students can perform under pressure. Johnson is a fan of timed tests if he says something like that. He values discipline in life. Garver Moore has a opinion that standardization is the whole idea behind SATs and that it needs to stay the way. He expresses that the if the student's brain is not capable of functioning in a timed test, that they should still have the same fairness as other students taking the test. He believes in the fairness of everyone should have the equal resources and time limit. Arnie Lichten is making fun of Gardner by pretty much saying "oh well, if you think there shouldn't be a timed test limit, maybe there should not be due dates on assignments". That is such an excellent fact, in college, there are due dates all the time. It gets even worse in the real world, deal with it. Janet Rudolph says success can be measured in a different ways besides just book smartness. That is a point because everybody can be smart and good at other things in life. Success is not just if someone can know the square root of some number.
Diane Ravitch believes in testing and standards are simply needed in life. Tests do improve education and show if students are getting what they should be out of the material given in a class. Knowledge and skills should be performed in education.

The Value of Tests

People who have specific views towards testing use critical thinking. In our book it says critical thinking is searching for hidden parts of an issue and finding significant discoveries towards what they are looking for, such as how to figure out if testing is a part of education that has to be permanent. Paul Goodman tries making the point that maybe we need to end testing in the education system. Goodman says we should just "abolish" testing. He goes by the philosophy of the medieval times when they knew what a good job of work equaled. He acknowledges positive reasons for testing, such as it creates structure for education. He also believes testing has huge weaknesses. He pretty much mocks the fact teachers give Fs out and acts like maybe the student is just too lazy. It is fair to say Goodman is not a fan of testing, he may not said in bold print he hates it, but I get that notion.
Howard Gardner believes in testing, but not how tests are timed. He believes that if a student needs extra time to complete a test, they should be granted the extra time to do so. Gardner talks about how the SATs are supposed to show the individuals who possess scholastic aptitudes, the students with intellectual goods and merit a college education. He views education in a sense that if a student has a disability to allow them to have a longer time frame to finish such a test. He rather the student finish the test, then do not do well only because of the time restraint. Gardner is not a fan of timed tests, and therefore, believes they should be eliminated from the education system. He believes the finish is what matters most.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Freedom of Speech

1-2 Derek Bok uses an incident of Confederate flag-waving to show the difference between free speech and the racial tensions involved. Some students were offended by the flag, linking Confederacy to slavery. Most students wanted it taken down, but other students felt the flag represented freedom of speech.
3 Different universities have handled this situation in both ways. Banning the flags or letting them stay up.
4 The First Amendment is protected but that does not mean it has to be "right, proper, or civil".
The vast majority of Harvard Students find it insensitive and crude. They also far outnumber the people who put it up and believe in it.
5 The people who put up the Confederate flag obviously knew they would upset the Harvard community and disregarded their feelings.
6 Even though the community is upset about the flag, there is no reason to prohibit it. Although some feelings may be hurt, the First Amendment clearly rules in favor of free speech
7,8,9- Communities have the right to discourage free speech if it affects them directly (too much noise or graffiti. The power of censorship is dangerous. Who is to say what is too offensive and what is not? If we forbid a Confederate flag, when will the American one be banned?
11 Instead of prohibiting flags, we should just ignore them, and the people who used them for attention will whither away or move on to new endeavors. Or we can try to explain why this flag is insensitive to those who choose to wave it.
12 Leaders at Harvard talked with the students. They should "educate and persuade the students, rather than ridicule or intimidate them".
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. That means any type of speech. We, as people, cannot censor how people feel or what they think. If the idea is offensive or crude, it is still an idea, and anybody can believe in it. The Constitution obviously picks the freedom of speech over the feelings of others. The Confederate flag offended many people, but banning it would just spur more bad intentions. What people in society have the right or the knowledge to censor one thing and not the next. Harvard officials did the right thing and had discussions about the freedom of speech instead of simply banning flags.

Grades and Testing

Goodman argues that grading should be done away with. He assumes that if prestigious universities abolish grading, then others would feel the same effects of it and follow along. He thinks that students are only concerned with what they "have" to know, rather than what they "want" to know. There is more interest in passing the class with a competetive grade, than in actually wanting to learn the material. He states this in the phrase, "The naive teacher points to the beauty of the subject and the ingenuity of the research; the shrewd student asks if he is responsible for that on the final exam." (19). He goes on to say that even very intelligent and bright students can become sick of a certain subject, can have a lot of common sense but not very book smart, and can become school-tired. These factors can effect a student's performance and ultimately lead to a bad grade, which will represent his or her intelligence even if they are smart. I can see where Goodman is coming from when he says to abolish grading. I know from experience that even if I want to pursue a subject, a bad grade hinders me from doing so. Sometimes, the grade is not only dependent on the student's performance and difficulty of the subject matter, but also on the teacher. There is a difference between good and bad teachers and how well the students learn from each one. I can also disagree with the banning of grades because how else would one be motivated? Grades are a way to evaluate performance and skills in a certain area. If I had a strong desire to be a dentist, but couldn't pass chemistry with a good grade, I probably would have to rethink my future plans because most dental schools think of grades as how well a student understands basic concepts.

Gardner believes that even though tests are necessary, they shouldn't be timed. He says, "The original thinking behind the SAT is that individuals possess varying scholastic apptitudes. The SAT is designed to discover those who've got the intellectual goods and merit a college education" (23). This is true, however, any student would be able to come up with the right answer if they were given an unlimited amount of time on a test, especially if outside resources were available. What he does not mention is that identifying correct answers in a certain amount of time evaluates how well one can perform under pressure. Like the editorial letter says, college and life itself are factors of major pressure. If one can not do well under pressure, they are more unlikely to succeed. I also agree with one of the other letters that compares good marks from a student who took more time and could use outside resources to the good marks of a student who finished in the set amount of time with no resources. They look the same, but schools won't know who actually has the better skills.

Ravitch defends testing by saying, "tests are a necessary fact of life [...] and play a constructive role" (26). Tests let us know how well we are doing compared to others on the same level as us or the same age as us. They let us know who can advance to the next level and who has to be held back in order to do good and get the best education as possible. I strongly believe these statements. I understand that students can buckle under pressure and have anxiety when it comes to tests, because I am one of them. But tests are good measurements of what one has learned and how well their skills have developed throughout the years. Education is taught step by step in sequences. If one doesn't master the first step, the second step and every other one after that will be much harder to accomplish. I think our world would be disaturous if professionals, and drivers, and other occupationalists weren't tested on their skills. What if a doctor was doing brain surgery on you without being tested of his or her knowledge? Scary!

Monday, May 21, 2007

Paul Goodman believes that grading should be abolished. His proposal is situated around the idea that grading in certain environments is negative. His first argument is that "grading hinders teaching and creates a bad spirit, such as cheating and plagiarism" (20). Looking particularly at Harvard and other Ivy League colleges, he points out that employers will be more impressed that you were there than what your grades were. It's similar with other employers today. What matters is that you have your bachelor's degree in whatever, that you survived the four years of classes and tests. Unfortunately, you need a 2.0 GPA to get a degree, and that involves a lot of tests and exams. Goodman's argument is that testing does not determine one's full extent of capabilities. If the aim of testing is to filter out our weaknesses, then there is no need for it. Also, if the aim of testing is to keep students from being lazy, then grading is of no use. Goodman argues that laziness is a character-defense, meaning we are not being challenged or this class is just not needed. Overall, Goodman agrees that "there are several good reasons for testing, and kinds of tests" (21). However, he feels that they are overused in higher education and create problems such as cheating and plagiarism. Tests should be used for positive results, and not used to sort weaknesses and keep students busy.
Gardner believes that standardized tests should not have a time limit. Standardized tests do not represent real world situations. Gardner believes that "background knowledge, seriousness of purpose, and effort - not speed and glibness - are the essentials of good scholarship" (24). A more appropriate option to standardized tests might include a larger variety of questions other than multiple choice, and no time limit to testing. This might allow students to show their true colors. There are, however, many objections to this point. The first is the simple fact that students want to be done with standardized tests ASAP. I don't want to be tested for more than three or four hours. Why don't you just torture me instead? Secondly, these tests need to be graded quickly and fairly. Anything other than multiple choice would call for unwarranted labor on part of the test results. Standardized testing is a necessary evil to help sort out those who are ready for the next level of education.
Diane Ravitch believes that testing is important and vital to education. She believes that standardized tests are not a way of weeding out the weak, but finding those that have a higher learning capability. Tests in everyday life help to keep us safe from "hazardous products and shoddy professionals". Standardized tests in education are leading to help children with learning problems and giving them extra help. Diane has many good points, and is very positive about testing in schools. She admits that tests that have more diversity - short answer, essay, and multiple choice - are better indicators of a child's knowledge.
All three authors offer valid points regarding testing. I've always hated standardized tests, but do believe they are a necessary evil when evaluating college entrance for students. Goodman's beliefs about testing are negative, and they do bring out the worst in some students. However, testing is essential in certain elements of society. My personal experience with tests is that if I have paid attention all semester, I only have to study for finals for 4-6 hours to receive a good grade. However, if I slacked off and was lazy, I have to study a lot more and am not even guaranteed a good grade. Grades are like salaries: the harder you work for them, the easier they will come.