I don't think I need to make my point. Puneet's existence proves itself through violent actuism.
The following will be a list of offenses against my person - updated as they surely propagate.
1. Keeping gum in silver business card holder. (10/30/2009)
2. Broke the Decorum... Jerk. (10/31/2009)
3. Wearing an excessively loud yellow shirt on a postdate to an extremely loud red shirt (11/1/2009)
4. French or English? (11/3/2009)
5. That laugh. AYFKM? (11/10/2009
6. Jubilant. 'Nuff said. (11/11/2009)
7. Claiming that laugh is not fake. (11/19/2009)
I'm going to go drink some maple syrup distillate.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
On Posting IB TOK Blogs
I have not written anything on this blog for at least a week.
I realized this is not just due to a lack of willingness to pour emotion into a non-spontaneous topic when I could and rather would be writing something of personal enjoyment (actually it is), but instead a lack of awareness as to what makes a topic "tok'able."
I've decided to compile a list filled to the brim with criteria for "good TOK topics," or "what makes a TOK topic legitimate." I am using - I assure you - only the definitions supplied to me by experience. Hopefully, this will help the non-spontaneous and therefore lesser creative juices flow.
1. An ethical dilema. Rather, just use the word ethical, or some combination of the letters. I learned that teachers purposely take ethical statements related to their subject and toss them towards 8th period twice a week because they are "rooted in TOK stuff," as a person once said.
2. The term art. I find it especially "tok'able" if the word art is paired with an interrogative.
3. Truth. Not necessarily anything about it - just say the word... over and over. Interrogatives also fit nicely here - specifically, "what is..."
4. The concept of perception. When you have used perception, use perspective. After perspective, point of view. Done with point of view? Move to personal observation. Personal observation used twice already? Subjective experience. With this you should have finished the paper, but if not... unique time-space equivalence plot.
5. Morality, and no it is not directly spawned from Christian imagery. Throw in a couple references to "good and evil," "what makes it so," and if its a discussion, just say, "who are we to decide?" It doesn't make you seem smart - just loud enough to maybe nullify the ridiculousness of quantifying subjective experience (Haha! Thank you #4).
6. Logical appeals. Inherent logical fallacy. Syllogisms. Logic as a...
7. Way of knowing. This hardly has to be cognizant. Step 1: say the three words a bunch. Step 2: ???? Step 3: PROFIT!
8. Existence. Use Neo as an example, and then Descartes. Then go crawl into your IBTOK inspired existential hole with Camus.
9. The word "theoretically." If you cant test something directly, you are probably capable of making an argument for it being true. If someone argues against you, say they are wrong, because they cant "know for sure." Then sprinkle the word absolute in with your next 6 sentences (bonus points for using it in each).
I've run out of ideas (meaning I've been writing for 15 minutes and am no longer interested).
But now juices are flowing... theoretically.
I realized this is not just due to a lack of willingness to pour emotion into a non-spontaneous topic when I could and rather would be writing something of personal enjoyment (actually it is), but instead a lack of awareness as to what makes a topic "tok'able."
I've decided to compile a list filled to the brim with criteria for "good TOK topics," or "what makes a TOK topic legitimate." I am using - I assure you - only the definitions supplied to me by experience. Hopefully, this will help the non-spontaneous and therefore lesser creative juices flow.
1. An ethical dilema. Rather, just use the word ethical, or some combination of the letters. I learned that teachers purposely take ethical statements related to their subject and toss them towards 8th period twice a week because they are "rooted in TOK stuff," as a person once said.
2. The term art. I find it especially "tok'able" if the word art is paired with an interrogative.
3. Truth. Not necessarily anything about it - just say the word... over and over. Interrogatives also fit nicely here - specifically, "what is..."
4. The concept of perception. When you have used perception, use perspective. After perspective, point of view. Done with point of view? Move to personal observation. Personal observation used twice already? Subjective experience. With this you should have finished the paper, but if not... unique time-space equivalence plot.
5. Morality, and no it is not directly spawned from Christian imagery. Throw in a couple references to "good and evil," "what makes it so," and if its a discussion, just say, "who are we to decide?" It doesn't make you seem smart - just loud enough to maybe nullify the ridiculousness of quantifying subjective experience (Haha! Thank you #4).
6. Logical appeals. Inherent logical fallacy. Syllogisms. Logic as a...
7. Way of knowing. This hardly has to be cognizant. Step 1: say the three words a bunch. Step 2: ???? Step 3: PROFIT!
8. Existence. Use Neo as an example, and then Descartes. Then go crawl into your IBTOK inspired existential hole with Camus.
9. The word "theoretically." If you cant test something directly, you are probably capable of making an argument for it being true. If someone argues against you, say they are wrong, because they cant "know for sure." Then sprinkle the word absolute in with your next 6 sentences (bonus points for using it in each).
I've run out of ideas (meaning I've been writing for 15 minutes and am no longer interested).
But now juices are flowing... theoretically.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
On Compulsory Voluntary Work
There are two organizations at our school generally recognized for their supposed 'outstanding' service to the community. The students within these organizations are lauded for their willingness to step outside of their comfort zone, sacrifice themselves and volunteer.
These organizations are Key Club, and National Honors Society. The former sounds stupid - I know - but is somewhat useful, and the latter is just as elitist as it sounds.
First, I would like to establish the theoretical goals for any organization falling under these criteria. It is supposed to be a volunteer, community service organization. By sheer repetition, this assumed goal would be best suited to a mass number of participants: more manpower = more service. Therefore, it can be concluded that a community service organization operates the strongest with more people.
Now the illogicality: both Key Club and NHS are organizations that one must apply to enter. Go figure, they both end up turning a number of applicants down every year. This goes directly against the goal stated in the previous paragraph by refusing the maximum number of workers and thereby theoretical output.
But wait, my dear reader, there is actually more slight of hand at work. A lack of participation in this VOLUNTEER organization can lead to the lack-ee being removed from the hierarchy post haste. This would not be a problem if it were not for the occult like behavior instilled in the organization's foundations - I'm looking at you NHS candle lighting ceremony - where simply being removed from the complex also includes a punishment. NHS for example, will vengefully call out to every college their reject has applied to and inform the admissions office of the supposed transgression that lack of participation is - unfortunately this would likely result in a complete tarnishing of reputation.
Follow the strand here: in order to be a part of the organization, one MUST complete their voluntary community service or suffer the consequences. Joining the organization is voluntary, but the work? An idiot would be able to see this is not voluntary at all; it is compulsory. And, by the goal set out initially, this imposes rationalized weakly-attempted spews to gain event credit, meaning the service is further weakened.
It makes me question... Why? Why do service organizations limit themselves via applications? How do they not see that such a practice equivocates a shot in the foot? More importantly, why do they hide behind the facade of "volunteer" long after they've broken the adjective.
Simply put, it is a matter of proclaiming the superiority of a select few whose applications had enough bells and whistles to bring some sort of notoriety to the group. Let's grow up. The world sucks enough as it is, and no one should be excluded from a concerted effort to make it better if they truly believe in it. By the same mark, no one should be forced into such a situation just because they need a signature - preventative of the boot-based greeting.
This all being said, I am part of both organizations that practice their "service" in these manners. I have no issues putting my time into extraneous things that I don't believe in, or believe are a waste of time.
Sadly, this probably detracts from the few projects a year that are genuinely worthwhile - I throw my hand in these situations with as great ferocity as leftovers allow. But alas, that is the system, and frankly: the system looks damn good on college apps.
These organizations are Key Club, and National Honors Society. The former sounds stupid - I know - but is somewhat useful, and the latter is just as elitist as it sounds.
First, I would like to establish the theoretical goals for any organization falling under these criteria. It is supposed to be a volunteer, community service organization. By sheer repetition, this assumed goal would be best suited to a mass number of participants: more manpower = more service. Therefore, it can be concluded that a community service organization operates the strongest with more people.
Now the illogicality: both Key Club and NHS are organizations that one must apply to enter. Go figure, they both end up turning a number of applicants down every year. This goes directly against the goal stated in the previous paragraph by refusing the maximum number of workers and thereby theoretical output.
But wait, my dear reader, there is actually more slight of hand at work. A lack of participation in this VOLUNTEER organization can lead to the lack-ee being removed from the hierarchy post haste. This would not be a problem if it were not for the occult like behavior instilled in the organization's foundations - I'm looking at you NHS candle lighting ceremony - where simply being removed from the complex also includes a punishment. NHS for example, will vengefully call out to every college their reject has applied to and inform the admissions office of the supposed transgression that lack of participation is - unfortunately this would likely result in a complete tarnishing of reputation.
Follow the strand here: in order to be a part of the organization, one MUST complete their voluntary community service or suffer the consequences. Joining the organization is voluntary, but the work? An idiot would be able to see this is not voluntary at all; it is compulsory. And, by the goal set out initially, this imposes rationalized weakly-attempted spews to gain event credit, meaning the service is further weakened.
It makes me question... Why? Why do service organizations limit themselves via applications? How do they not see that such a practice equivocates a shot in the foot? More importantly, why do they hide behind the facade of "volunteer" long after they've broken the adjective.
Simply put, it is a matter of proclaiming the superiority of a select few whose applications had enough bells and whistles to bring some sort of notoriety to the group. Let's grow up. The world sucks enough as it is, and no one should be excluded from a concerted effort to make it better if they truly believe in it. By the same mark, no one should be forced into such a situation just because they need a signature - preventative of the boot-based greeting.
This all being said, I am part of both organizations that practice their "service" in these manners. I have no issues putting my time into extraneous things that I don't believe in, or believe are a waste of time.
Sadly, this probably detracts from the few projects a year that are genuinely worthwhile - I throw my hand in these situations with as great ferocity as leftovers allow. But alas, that is the system, and frankly: the system looks damn good on college apps.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
On Arson, Remote Controls, and Remote Controlled Arson
This world is built upon so much uncertainty that the brief interludes of definite are invaluable. For example:
There are certain things that make everything - without exception - cooler. By this, I of course do not mean temperature - I'm vaguely insulted that you even considered that.
Grow up, my good reader.
Now that the definitions are set, and the discipline done, I shall begin the thought experiment to prove my point:
Think about the most awesome thing you have ever seen/experienced.
Ok... you have that picture in your head? Now I am going to alter that picture just a bit, making it a minimum of 7x more awesome. Are you positively prepared for that kind of blatant over-expansion of cool? If you aren't, I recommend you sit down, remove your socks (who wares socks inside anyway) and take a deep breath.
A list of steps:
1. Find your object.
2. Commit arson. This step is very important. Make the fire huge - like, dangerous huge. In fact, throw everything you have ever cared about into the fire, even your grandma (she'll understand). Casualty count is in this case directly proportional to wow factor.
3. Attach remote control to object. Make it have an unnecessary amount of torque and a brilliantly specific number of speed adjustment dials, ambiguous switches, and even volume controls (no, I don't know what they are for or what they are supposed to do). The mere mystification of something moving by your impetus from afar is like an injection of adrenalin into the already steroid filled veins of your flaming symbol.... oh yes. Feel it.
4. Bask in the sheer adulation of everyone around you.
Don't believe me?
Normal Penguin:
Penguin on Fire (7x as cool)
In summation, I really had nothing better to write about. It's kind of upsetting.
I am making a resolution to comment on something important for the next post.
... probably.
There are certain things that make everything - without exception - cooler. By this, I of course do not mean temperature - I'm vaguely insulted that you even considered that.
Grow up, my good reader.
Now that the definitions are set, and the discipline done, I shall begin the thought experiment to prove my point:
Think about the most awesome thing you have ever seen/experienced.
Ok... you have that picture in your head? Now I am going to alter that picture just a bit, making it a minimum of 7x more awesome. Are you positively prepared for that kind of blatant over-expansion of cool? If you aren't, I recommend you sit down, remove your socks (who wares socks inside anyway) and take a deep breath.
A list of steps:
1. Find your object.
2. Commit arson. This step is very important. Make the fire huge - like, dangerous huge. In fact, throw everything you have ever cared about into the fire, even your grandma (she'll understand). Casualty count is in this case directly proportional to wow factor.
3. Attach remote control to object. Make it have an unnecessary amount of torque and a brilliantly specific number of speed adjustment dials, ambiguous switches, and even volume controls (no, I don't know what they are for or what they are supposed to do). The mere mystification of something moving by your impetus from afar is like an injection of adrenalin into the already steroid filled veins of your flaming symbol.... oh yes. Feel it.
4. Bask in the sheer adulation of everyone around you.
Don't believe me?
Normal Penguin:
Penguin on Fire (7x as cool)
In summation, I really had nothing better to write about. It's kind of upsetting.
I am making a resolution to comment on something important for the next post.
... probably.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
On 7
I may be crazy, but the name J-e-r-e-m-y has six letters. Similarly, the name F-r-a-n-k has five.
Do you not yet see the pattern?
I was born February 5, 1992 - that is 2/5/1992; do you get it now?
My family takes up 5 spots at the dinner table...
I have 2 cats. TWO OF THEM!
6 (first name) times 5 (last name) = 30
5 + 2 + 1 + 9 + 9 + 2 (birth date) = 28
30 squared - 28 squared = 116
5! (family members factorial) - 116 = 4
4 + 2 (# of cats) = 6
I tremble at the last step, which I assure you was not pre-planned.
6 + (my class rank) = ...
7.
...
...
Superstition is generally cool to think about, but not in the context of math. I would like to point to Mr. Jim Carrey's portrayal in the movie "23" for justification. Numbers can be manipulated by any half sane monkey of a man. Add in enough variables and the desired result is instantly achievable. Unlucky numbers are a ridiculous concept, and I would like to propose that we get rid of them entirely.
Lucky numbers though... you rock, and are completely legitimate. (<3 25)
That is all.
Do you not yet see the pattern?
I was born February 5, 1992 - that is 2/5/1992; do you get it now?
My family takes up 5 spots at the dinner table...
I have 2 cats. TWO OF THEM!
6 (first name) times 5 (last name) = 30
5 + 2 + 1 + 9 + 9 + 2 (birth date) = 28
30 squared - 28 squared = 116
5! (family members factorial) - 116 = 4
4 + 2 (# of cats) = 6
I tremble at the last step, which I assure you was not pre-planned.
6 + (my class rank) = ...
7.
...
...
Superstition is generally cool to think about, but not in the context of math. I would like to point to Mr. Jim Carrey's portrayal in the movie "23" for justification. Numbers can be manipulated by any half sane monkey of a man. Add in enough variables and the desired result is instantly achievable. Unlucky numbers are a ridiculous concept, and I would like to propose that we get rid of them entirely.
Lucky numbers though... you rock, and are completely legitimate. (<3 25)
That is all.
Monday, October 12, 2009
On Subwoofers, Gangstas, and Boy Bands
Useless competition is a stereotypically male thing, and generally gets a rather becoming name thereby - I'll let it go unmentioned here, but I assure you after all. These back and forths are rather biographical for their participants, and from a third perspective seem not only useless - the adjective with which I originally defined them - but hilarious.
Having been involved in one or two useless competitions myself, I can vouch that the thought of your own idiocy does not cross mind at the moment of requirement. The only important value in these testosterone filled tug of wars is the winner - or rather, who, "owned that (expletive) dawg! (sic)... (expletive)." I'm cautious to believe that my readers fully understand what brilliant examples of dogmatic refusals and Freud-shaming denial this will animate.
With that in mind, I describe the situation from which my writing today dedicates. For the sake of sanity, I shan't discuss the circumstances that led to my circumstances, only the directly attached bit anecdotal evidence required - the rest of the story is far too... ambitious (to put it vaguely).
Taco Bell is essentially a haven for midnight snackage. By consequence, it is the home of utterly baseless bits of exhausted rhetoric and neurons that don't seem to fire quite as fast as they should. Normally, my visits to the 'Bell include just a few friends and the late hour tends to more of a light spattering of drive through visitors than food-permanent residences. We are the latter, and there are plenty of story's thereby. However, tonight was different.
For whatever reason, every hound and his dog was at the 'Bell this night (a full parking lot at a fast food establishment is somewhat unnerving for society amirite?). The aforementioned brain function issues were quite proverbially the edge of a cliff, the lit wick of dynamite, and the precariously perched pewter pedestal in a paper bag of men who I'm sure would be glad to call themselves 'gangsta's' (sic) and hitch at a 'chang' (sic) around their neck.
I sat between 30 and 40 feet from my car, attempting to merely enjoy the humble ecstasy of fire sauce and a soft taco, when my ears were bombarded by... I suppose some call it music. One of the Bell going cliques had his car open and radio blasting. Soon enough, the next car in line was topping the output and the first bowed out. This secondary source of noise was again drowned out by a third. Finally, in a theatrical display of door opening and trunk popping, the loudest car forced itself upon everyone within half a kilometer, more bass than anything.
Finishing my taco and wiping my fingers to the techno 'flair' of an extremely autotuned voice, I stood and cantered over to my car. I signaled to the supposed winner for my turn and spun the keys (as they say). As the excessive bass dwindled, my stereo was ready. I smiled, trash talked and gave it a little bit of suspense.
The play button hovered over N'Sync's Bye Bye Bye. Shouting, "Here comes da (sic) real beats mother (plural expletive)!" my finger pressed.
Those poor, poor 'gangstas.' (sic) It was like their precious ears were being bombarded by something that was loud, annoying, and completely out of place.
I drove off smiling.
Having been involved in one or two useless competitions myself, I can vouch that the thought of your own idiocy does not cross mind at the moment of requirement. The only important value in these testosterone filled tug of wars is the winner - or rather, who, "owned that (expletive) dawg! (sic)... (expletive)." I'm cautious to believe that my readers fully understand what brilliant examples of dogmatic refusals and Freud-shaming denial this will animate.
With that in mind, I describe the situation from which my writing today dedicates. For the sake of sanity, I shan't discuss the circumstances that led to my circumstances, only the directly attached bit anecdotal evidence required - the rest of the story is far too... ambitious (to put it vaguely).
Taco Bell is essentially a haven for midnight snackage. By consequence, it is the home of utterly baseless bits of exhausted rhetoric and neurons that don't seem to fire quite as fast as they should. Normally, my visits to the 'Bell include just a few friends and the late hour tends to more of a light spattering of drive through visitors than food-permanent residences. We are the latter, and there are plenty of story's thereby. However, tonight was different.
For whatever reason, every hound and his dog was at the 'Bell this night (a full parking lot at a fast food establishment is somewhat unnerving for society amirite?). The aforementioned brain function issues were quite proverbially the edge of a cliff, the lit wick of dynamite, and the precariously perched pewter pedestal in a paper bag of men who I'm sure would be glad to call themselves 'gangsta's' (sic) and hitch at a 'chang' (sic) around their neck.
I sat between 30 and 40 feet from my car, attempting to merely enjoy the humble ecstasy of fire sauce and a soft taco, when my ears were bombarded by... I suppose some call it music. One of the Bell going cliques had his car open and radio blasting. Soon enough, the next car in line was topping the output and the first bowed out. This secondary source of noise was again drowned out by a third. Finally, in a theatrical display of door opening and trunk popping, the loudest car forced itself upon everyone within half a kilometer, more bass than anything.
Finishing my taco and wiping my fingers to the techno 'flair' of an extremely autotuned voice, I stood and cantered over to my car. I signaled to the supposed winner for my turn and spun the keys (as they say). As the excessive bass dwindled, my stereo was ready. I smiled, trash talked and gave it a little bit of suspense.
The play button hovered over N'Sync's Bye Bye Bye. Shouting, "Here comes da (sic) real beats mother (plural expletive)!" my finger pressed.
Those poor, poor 'gangstas.' (sic) It was like their precious ears were being bombarded by something that was loud, annoying, and completely out of place.
I drove off smiling.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
On the Dark Room Effect 2009
Don't you find it strange how the slightest seasoning of anonymity can turn the most outstanding of human beings into a slobbish mass of degenerate imbeciles?
Is it bad technique to answer my own seemingly rhetorical questions? The latter: probably. The former: strangeness and hilarity intertwine.
You see, things the average human being would never do in broad daylight seem somewhat more feasible in the context of darkness. And for the sake of definitions here, by darkness, I mean more of a shadow than a bumbling blind. It is just enough to confuse the linear definitions of a being; one is certainly still aware of surroundings and objections nearby.
I pose that perhaps a bit of prattling pitter-patter is in order - our subject: why?
Anonymity dissolves responsibility. It takes legitimacy and a sense of self and sacrifices it to the pagans. They are not necessary; there is a replacing comfort found in the darkness.
I believe that it can therefore be concluded, that one becomes much more concrete under the inebriating darkness. It seems to revert - to exactly what... it is difficult to define. Perhaps the simplest outline is the inner want. A crowd and obscurity breeds primal expression.
For some reason, darkness also justifies freedoms - the jerkisms, the supposed-taboo, the physical - that are otherwise out of the question.
That being said, I love what it does to people. We lie far too often, and expect far too much. It is brilliant, especially upon confrontation and persistent reminder. And then, when you catch those people in a facade of outstanding moral-fiber - by their own definitions not mine... oh dear.
We should dim the lights more often.
Is it bad technique to answer my own seemingly rhetorical questions? The latter: probably. The former: strangeness and hilarity intertwine.
You see, things the average human being would never do in broad daylight seem somewhat more feasible in the context of darkness. And for the sake of definitions here, by darkness, I mean more of a shadow than a bumbling blind. It is just enough to confuse the linear definitions of a being; one is certainly still aware of surroundings and objections nearby.
I pose that perhaps a bit of prattling pitter-patter is in order - our subject: why?
Anonymity dissolves responsibility. It takes legitimacy and a sense of self and sacrifices it to the pagans. They are not necessary; there is a replacing comfort found in the darkness.
I believe that it can therefore be concluded, that one becomes much more concrete under the inebriating darkness. It seems to revert - to exactly what... it is difficult to define. Perhaps the simplest outline is the inner want. A crowd and obscurity breeds primal expression.
For some reason, darkness also justifies freedoms - the jerkisms, the supposed-taboo, the physical - that are otherwise out of the question.
That being said, I love what it does to people. We lie far too often, and expect far too much. It is brilliant, especially upon confrontation and persistent reminder. And then, when you catch those people in a facade of outstanding moral-fiber - by their own definitions not mine... oh dear.
We should dim the lights more often.
On the Saturday Attrition Tallies
First of all, I would like to posit the following: the SAT is inconceivably annoying.
I am sick and tired of filling in bubbles, as well as pretending to care about the environmental issues of Alaska. Also, English - though regulated via word order instead of inflection - is still flexible. Oh, and let's not forget the feeling of absolute masochistic tendency that follows a realization of, "OH MY GOD! I SKIPPED QUESTION 4!" I tried to calculate the number of test takers per Saturday times number of fully destroyed erasers (by volume)... but my good ol' TI-84 flicked me off for imputing such trash of a statistic.
...
School takes us in when our parents are either too dull to push us farther or perhaps too busy keeping food in our mouths to supply mental advancement. It is a relief to the system - to those parents/guardians who cant. It is also mandated by law, meaning that not accepting this relief equates punishment. It thereby means that a lack of need for this relief is nowhere near an acceptable escape from the system. It is a social pseudo-necessity backed by a governmental system.
School teaches us a rigged set of points - a curriculum of knowledge laid out by people the teachers more often than not have no connection with whatsoever. It is a system built to make all of our children perfectly (or proverbially, your choice) 'well rounded.' It doesn't matter if a kid doesn't wish to learn that section because it seems to have no correlation between their current wants and their eventual goal - the material must be learned.
This stagnant hierarchy of learning makes one more socially normal and certainly fits the criteria for 'well rounded.' Why though? We've known about square pegs in round holes long enough that someone finally tried a round peg in a square hole - turns out it generally fits.
This is not necessarily a critique... fitting is good (and I don't feel like critiquing at this moment). What I do wish to point out is a case of knowledge homogenization. Everyone is offered the same plate and expected to prepare the same dish upon it.
But why?
Does congruity build society?
Has anyone ever been so just like everyone else that they changed the world?
This leads me to the SAT. It doesn't really test the dynamic capability of one's mind. It does show how much we listened in class - how much effort we put into learning exactly what we were told to learn.
What it lacks is fatal.
The SAT shows nothing of what we learned when no one told us to.
...Plus, it destroys pencils and makes my calculator mad at me, which is unforgivable.
I am sick and tired of filling in bubbles, as well as pretending to care about the environmental issues of Alaska. Also, English - though regulated via word order instead of inflection - is still flexible. Oh, and let's not forget the feeling of absolute masochistic tendency that follows a realization of, "OH MY GOD! I SKIPPED QUESTION 4!" I tried to calculate the number of test takers per Saturday times number of fully destroyed erasers (by volume)... but my good ol' TI-84 flicked me off for imputing such trash of a statistic.
...
School takes us in when our parents are either too dull to push us farther or perhaps too busy keeping food in our mouths to supply mental advancement. It is a relief to the system - to those parents/guardians who cant. It is also mandated by law, meaning that not accepting this relief equates punishment. It thereby means that a lack of need for this relief is nowhere near an acceptable escape from the system. It is a social pseudo-necessity backed by a governmental system.
School teaches us a rigged set of points - a curriculum of knowledge laid out by people the teachers more often than not have no connection with whatsoever. It is a system built to make all of our children perfectly (or proverbially, your choice) 'well rounded.' It doesn't matter if a kid doesn't wish to learn that section because it seems to have no correlation between their current wants and their eventual goal - the material must be learned.
This stagnant hierarchy of learning makes one more socially normal and certainly fits the criteria for 'well rounded.' Why though? We've known about square pegs in round holes long enough that someone finally tried a round peg in a square hole - turns out it generally fits.
This is not necessarily a critique... fitting is good (and I don't feel like critiquing at this moment). What I do wish to point out is a case of knowledge homogenization. Everyone is offered the same plate and expected to prepare the same dish upon it.
But why?
Does congruity build society?
Has anyone ever been so just like everyone else that they changed the world?
This leads me to the SAT. It doesn't really test the dynamic capability of one's mind. It does show how much we listened in class - how much effort we put into learning exactly what we were told to learn.
What it lacks is fatal.
The SAT shows nothing of what we learned when no one told us to.
...Plus, it destroys pencils and makes my calculator mad at me, which is unforgivable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)