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.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)