Sunday, August 5, 2007

Week 6 Blog post

Week 6 Blog

When did the sacrifices of the few start to out way the needs of the many? I totally disagree with the commenting on the Holmes case by Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo. Justice Cordozo wrote that that if “none were ready to sacrifice themselves that the human freight must be left to chance the waters”. In an over loaded boat, that is sinking, in rough waters, what is wrong with jettisoning some “human cargo”? If everything else is gone, how else is the crew to save as many people as possible by lightening the ship? I say women and children first (no don’t toss them out first)! The old, the sick, those who are single without young children and then the men that have children if need be. The unfortunate rule of disaster is that some must die so that others can survive on. I would gladly have volunteered my life in order to save the lives of others in the situation that they were in.

Week 1 Blog Post

Week 1 blog

Although testing is an academic function that serves a purpose, after reading the material presented by Paul Goodman, Howard Gardner and Diane Ravitch, I believe that the academic community has lost sight of the true purpose. Society as a whole view testing as a competitive action in order to get a job, move forward in a career, obtain licensure and what not. But in academics, the true purpose of testing should be to determine the academic proficiency of students in order to identify those in need of greater assistance in order to learn the subject material.
I agree with Mr Godman that a great majority of students will learn and put fourth only as much effort as to receive a grade that they are comfortable with. For some that’s an A and others a C, but what concerns me the most is that most of the time even the A students do not fully learn or appreciate the material that they are presented with. Instead, the attitude of “what do I need to know to get by” comes to prevail.
Howard Gardner argues the point that SAT testing should test a students ability to problem solve and come up with sound answers without restriction to time. I feel that this is a sound argument. Here is a personal example of why I agree with him. My wife and I appear to have different speeds of possessing information. She takes her time and reads things through and then needs some time to absorb the information and formulate an answer after all of the facts have been taken into account. I on the other hand, generally rip through the material and formulate an answer as I go. By the time I am done reading, I have an answer. Some may think that I have superior intellect than my wife (let me assure you I do not) because of my speed of process. This is not the case. For the most part, we either come up with the same answer to the problem or hers is actually better than mine. Therefore, time restrictions actually may hide true intellectuals that would greatly succeed in college and may even have potentially had a great impact on the world.
“In Defense of Testing” written by Diane Ravitch brings forth the point that testing is an essential and necessary fact of life. I agree with her thoughts that testing protects us from dangers of unqualified professionals and feel that this is a function that testing provides. I wouldn’t want my doctor to diagnose me with an illness or perform a surgery without being properly qualified. Nor would I want to encounter a police officer that had failed a psychological competency exam.