I was going to do this blog post in world religions class on Wednesday, but something stopped me. I didn't want my last blog to be something I just typed to get a grade, for some odd reason I feel a sentimental connection with my homework of all things. So I spent the rest of the week trying to think of what I would write; maybe something about high school as a whole, maybe something about how IB has become my second family, or even just thanking everyone for being a part of my life. Something about the finality of this has me stuck trying to make sure there isn't something better I'll think of later, or leaving something unsaid, to be lost for the rest of my life.
Ultimately, I don't feel like summarizing my time in high school is the best post, I'd rather make it more centered on IB, because it's what I'll remember more of when I think back on Millbrook. Everyone in the programme really has become significant in my life, and I do love you guys, in my own way. I don't show it, I'm not one for expressing emotion really, but everyone I've had the pleasure of having class with has had a profound impact on who I am today, and I care about all of you. As ready as I am to leave Millbrook as a building, I am nowhere near ready to leave behind the people inside of it.
Thank you, everyone, students and teachers, for the times we've had together at Millbrook. The saddest moment of my life will not be saying goodbyes at graduation, but when I'm old and I start to lose the memories of us together (or possibly when we all come back and see each other and it doesn't work like Mrs. G said it would when we studied NLMG).
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Saturday, April 4, 2015
My Other Favorite W.W.
1. The first couple of pages of the notebook seem to introduce an idea. I can make out the words "brochure", "two character as of a dialogue between A. L", and "Lessons for a president elect, dialogue between --- and 'President elect'" and I presume that A. L scribble is Abraham Lincoln based on the background you gave us and the time period.
Past the first two pages the writing is smaller and less discernible, and frequently Walt crossing something out (I guess he makes more mistakes than his chemist counterpart). The words I can read are deep in nature, especially linked together, like conscience, philosophy, questioning and reason. They lead me to believe that the conversation he's writing about with Lincoln is more of a catalyst for a more complex idea that war politics. The way he crosses out words or phrases, along with the lack of organization and what seems to be a bit of a ramble makes me think that he would write quickly in his journal whenever he had an interesting thought, and that he was trying to write as fast as he could think. I get this impression because the crossing out indicates frenzied writing, and also how he scribbles the second half of some words which also makes it seem rushed.
Whitman uses question marks throughout the notebook, but I'm unsure if it's to pose rhetorical questions in his poetry or to ask himself these questions later when he's writing the final drafts to help his thought process.
I don't know the significance of the drawings, but I'm guessing they're of his and Lincoln, and they aren't doodles because they are all separated.
2. I was right in a way that it was about something deeper than just the civil war, but he linked so much of it back that the war served as more than a catalyst to begin his ideas, and instead he developed his ideas in its context. I think the use of Spanish in Libertad and the significance of the interpretation given, that liberty extends beyond our borders, is very ahead of his time, where social Darwinism was just coming about and other races were still considered sub-human and less sophisticated.
I didn't pick up on as much about liberty and the idea that freedom is a separate entity from democracy and government altogether, but I think it shows how Walt was concerned with the future of the nation, and of humanity. The idea that freedom transcends any regime is interesting, and very poetic in nature. Also describing the union as a ship allows several metaphors to be made, and might reflect something of his background (complete guess, he could have been a farmer).
It's strange that experts think the drawing aren't by Walt, and it throws me a bit because I had assumed that his notebook would be private and guarded because it contained his raw thoughts.
Past the first two pages the writing is smaller and less discernible, and frequently Walt crossing something out (I guess he makes more mistakes than his chemist counterpart). The words I can read are deep in nature, especially linked together, like conscience, philosophy, questioning and reason. They lead me to believe that the conversation he's writing about with Lincoln is more of a catalyst for a more complex idea that war politics. The way he crosses out words or phrases, along with the lack of organization and what seems to be a bit of a ramble makes me think that he would write quickly in his journal whenever he had an interesting thought, and that he was trying to write as fast as he could think. I get this impression because the crossing out indicates frenzied writing, and also how he scribbles the second half of some words which also makes it seem rushed.
Whitman uses question marks throughout the notebook, but I'm unsure if it's to pose rhetorical questions in his poetry or to ask himself these questions later when he's writing the final drafts to help his thought process.
I don't know the significance of the drawings, but I'm guessing they're of his and Lincoln, and they aren't doodles because they are all separated.
2. I was right in a way that it was about something deeper than just the civil war, but he linked so much of it back that the war served as more than a catalyst to begin his ideas, and instead he developed his ideas in its context. I think the use of Spanish in Libertad and the significance of the interpretation given, that liberty extends beyond our borders, is very ahead of his time, where social Darwinism was just coming about and other races were still considered sub-human and less sophisticated.
I didn't pick up on as much about liberty and the idea that freedom is a separate entity from democracy and government altogether, but I think it shows how Walt was concerned with the future of the nation, and of humanity. The idea that freedom transcends any regime is interesting, and very poetic in nature. Also describing the union as a ship allows several metaphors to be made, and might reflect something of his background (complete guess, he could have been a farmer).
It's strange that experts think the drawing aren't by Walt, and it throws me a bit because I had assumed that his notebook would be private and guarded because it contained his raw thoughts.
Monday, March 23, 2015
The American Dream
I believe the American dream goes beyond just a white picket fenced house with a family of four and a dog. While this is the classic idea of American middle-classness, it doesn't reflect what most people truly want. I think that a normal suburban life is more of what people settle for, but not dream for, at least while they're still young and hopeful. I think the American dream is about success, defined by both prestige and by wealth, and that there is less emphasis on the family in today's American dream. To me, the American dream is to be wealthy and to live a life of comfort and luxury, and that it has become much more materialistic. When you look at social media, tweets/posts about "Car goals *heart face emoji*" or "dream house/apartment" outnumber those about finding a significant other or having a family ten to one. This reflects how the dream for most young people has shifted to encompass possessions more than relationships.
Wealth is defined by what you have fiscally, in both assets and also liquid money, so basically everything you report on fafsa. It creates the ability to spend frivolously, however nice cars and clothes don't always show wealth, as you don't know if someone spent 10% of their net worth or .005% of their salary on a new Mercedes. Wealth is also defined by financial security, and the comfortably that people have with money. Lastly, wealth can be defined by the quote, "Lebron James is rich, the guy who signs his paychecks is wealthy."
Most Americans tend to identify with the "99%" and see the gap in income as a large and corrupt entity. I think that most people would agree that it is difficult to become successful if you are not born with some wealth, as some important opportunities are missed when you don't have money and the freedom that comes with it (like having a car as a teenager and being able to be in clubs, which makes you a better college applicant and so forth).
My attitude towards wealth and poverty is somewhat mixed. I believe that with enough drive, anything is achievable provided that you have the ability as well. That said, I understand how much more difficult it is to rise in wealth if you don't have a solid foundation for a good start. I think that this also discourages people who could be successful and does sabotage their future, but a significant portion of those in poverty also use this as an excuse and do not give their all to succeed. I also think that the extremely wealthy are greedy, however I understand that I would be reluctant to give away lots of money if I felt like I had earned it.
Wealth is defined by what you have fiscally, in both assets and also liquid money, so basically everything you report on fafsa. It creates the ability to spend frivolously, however nice cars and clothes don't always show wealth, as you don't know if someone spent 10% of their net worth or .005% of their salary on a new Mercedes. Wealth is also defined by financial security, and the comfortably that people have with money. Lastly, wealth can be defined by the quote, "Lebron James is rich, the guy who signs his paychecks is wealthy."
Most Americans tend to identify with the "99%" and see the gap in income as a large and corrupt entity. I think that most people would agree that it is difficult to become successful if you are not born with some wealth, as some important opportunities are missed when you don't have money and the freedom that comes with it (like having a car as a teenager and being able to be in clubs, which makes you a better college applicant and so forth).
My attitude towards wealth and poverty is somewhat mixed. I believe that with enough drive, anything is achievable provided that you have the ability as well. That said, I understand how much more difficult it is to rise in wealth if you don't have a solid foundation for a good start. I think that this also discourages people who could be successful and does sabotage their future, but a significant portion of those in poverty also use this as an excuse and do not give their all to succeed. I also think that the extremely wealthy are greedy, however I understand that I would be reluctant to give away lots of money if I felt like I had earned it.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
IOC (I'm Outwardly Crying)
Criterion A: 6
My claims were supported by the text but I thought they lacked the depth to make them qualify as strong knowledge.
Criterion B: 4
I feel like I didn't analyze the literary features of the text well and stuck to mostly plot points to make my argument, and didn't consider how they affect the reader much/at all.
Criterion C: 3-4
I think my monologue was decently well organized and followed the structure I set up for it in my opening statement.
Criterion D: 3
I could have used a more sophisticated and diverse vocabulary to seem more articulate and help advance my points better, I also had some awkward pauses.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
TED Talk
Malcolm Gladwell: The Unheard Story of David and Goliath
Malcolm Gladwell's main arguing point is that there are unseen advantages and disadvantages in the biblical story of David and Goliath. He uses physics to assert that we greatly underestimate the power of the sling, which could have propelled a rock with the equivalent force of a .45 pistol round according to his analysis. He also touches on the weaknesses of Goliath that we don't consider, like that he could have had a tumor on his pituitary gland to cause his massive size and also impair his vision and coordination. He combines these two to state that David may have actually been the superior combatant upon further examination.
Gladwell uses mainly logos in his talk, as he uses hypothetical reasoning to back many of his claims. However, many of his claims aren't backed with much evidence or given the full reasoning behind them, like when he states that David could use his sling to unleash a projectile at over 35meters/sec. He doesn't make any statements about how strong David might have been and even in his book doesn't include the equation he used to find this figure. The second and last method of persuasion he uses is ethos, by saying things such as "within the medical community" without including any specific doctors or quotations to back up his analysis of the situation. He also uses quotes from the bible to add credibility to his findings.
I picked this talk because I had already read his book David and Goliath and thought the analysis he had of the classic story was very interesting. The story itself might not apply much to me itself, but the concept of strengths being weaknesses and vice-versa that he expands on in his book does. For example he described how a high percentage of fortune 500 CEOs have some form of learning disability and the way they got around it made them better at what they do. Furthermore the failures they frequently experienced in their childhood because of them made them more likely to take the risks necessary to succeed. Another example that I thought applied more to me as a senior is that of choosing a college. He compared choosing a college to the impressionist movement in art, concluding that it was better to go to a lower rated school because you would be in the higher percentile and have a better GPA. (This was also backed by a study that said for every 10 points higher the average SAT math score of an accepted applicant was, the likelihood of them dropping a STEM major increase by 2%)
Malcolm Gladwell's main arguing point is that there are unseen advantages and disadvantages in the biblical story of David and Goliath. He uses physics to assert that we greatly underestimate the power of the sling, which could have propelled a rock with the equivalent force of a .45 pistol round according to his analysis. He also touches on the weaknesses of Goliath that we don't consider, like that he could have had a tumor on his pituitary gland to cause his massive size and also impair his vision and coordination. He combines these two to state that David may have actually been the superior combatant upon further examination.
Gladwell uses mainly logos in his talk, as he uses hypothetical reasoning to back many of his claims. However, many of his claims aren't backed with much evidence or given the full reasoning behind them, like when he states that David could use his sling to unleash a projectile at over 35meters/sec. He doesn't make any statements about how strong David might have been and even in his book doesn't include the equation he used to find this figure. The second and last method of persuasion he uses is ethos, by saying things such as "within the medical community" without including any specific doctors or quotations to back up his analysis of the situation. He also uses quotes from the bible to add credibility to his findings.
I picked this talk because I had already read his book David and Goliath and thought the analysis he had of the classic story was very interesting. The story itself might not apply much to me itself, but the concept of strengths being weaknesses and vice-versa that he expands on in his book does. For example he described how a high percentage of fortune 500 CEOs have some form of learning disability and the way they got around it made them better at what they do. Furthermore the failures they frequently experienced in their childhood because of them made them more likely to take the risks necessary to succeed. Another example that I thought applied more to me as a senior is that of choosing a college. He compared choosing a college to the impressionist movement in art, concluding that it was better to go to a lower rated school because you would be in the higher percentile and have a better GPA. (This was also backed by a study that said for every 10 points higher the average SAT math score of an accepted applicant was, the likelihood of them dropping a STEM major increase by 2%)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)