Integrated Global Studies School: A Dream or a Reality?

Yesterday in advisory, a teacher named Mr. Vargas gave us a presentation about the new Integrated Global Studies school. The idea sounded very intriguing to me, because I loved taking EH freshman year and AS junior year (both classes that integrate English and History). Since I loved these classes so much, I thought that IGSS would be a good choice for me. In addition, the IGSS focuses on global studies and the environment, which is similar to Geoscience. I am taking Geoscience this year and it has been my favorite science course at New Trier so far.

After introducing the idea, Mr. Vargas gave us a few things to consider with scheduling. For starters, it would take place periods 5-8. My senior year I was hoping to take Design as an art elective, a class that only meets sixth period. The reality is that I have wanted to take this class for a long time, and if I did IGSS I would have to give it up, something that I didn't want to do. In addition, IGSS counts for English, History, and Science, which means I could not take other English, History, or Science courses. Ever since Freshman year, I have planned to take AP Psych and AP Creative Writing Senior Year. Not only do these courses look good on college appliations, but they also interest me greatly. After listening to Mr. Vargas speak, I realized that the dream, (or idea) was that I could take another integrated class, something I loved. The reality was that I would have to give up other courses that I have wanted to take for a long time. Another reality which we addressed in class is that colleges prefer to see standard courses rather than new, somewhat experimental ones. After talking to some friends in advisory, I learned that others, like myself are intrigued by an integrated course, but are hesitant to deviate from their four-year plan they created freshman year.

A Pragmatic Approach to Lying

I came across this article, titled "Why kids lie: How to teach children truthfulness and respond to lies helpfully." The article was directed at parents, but I was immediately intersted because my two little siblings often lie about even the smallest things. The article has many practical tips for helping kids to stop lying. "Teaching truthfulness repetitively, not only after children already have lied," was one of these tips. Another one was "Not punishing truth telling. The consequences for coming clean should never be so severe that it's worth it to the child to take the risk and lie." The second tip is extremely practical, because I feel that many children choose to lie because they know the truth will get them in trouble. If a parent makes it clear that the child will not get a severe punishment for telling the truth, they will be less afraid of telling the truth. "Reassuring children that we won't be as angry if they tell the truth." was another one of these tips.

This article is very practical in explaining that parents need to set a good role model for their children by not telling lies themselves, because young children "soak things up like a sponge." I appreciate that Jody Johnston Pawel (the author) knows that there is no hard-and-fast rule for getting children to stop lying, which is why she is practical in offering many different solutions. Pawel also realizes that no matter how many times the parent tells a child "lying is bad--dont do it!" the child still may not listen and continue to lie, which is why a parent needs to be patient.
When dealing with problems involving children, I think it is best to take a pragmatic approach because parents will become easily frustrated if their expectations are overly idealistic and the child does not meet them.

Idealistically Enchanted

This weekend I watched the movie "Enchanted" while babysitting two little girls. For those who havent seen the movie, Enchanted is a Disney fairytale movie about a princess named Giselle who lives in a perfect animated world. Just as she is about to marry her prince, the evil witch throws her into a black hole and she is transported to New York city (and is no longer animated). She meets Robert, a very pragmatic man with a cynical outlook on life. After meeting Robert, Giselle begins to change her overly idealistic views on life and love. Robert learns from Giselle that while being practical may be the safest, it is good to step outside your comfort zone and take risks. My favorite line of the movie is when Giselle says "nobody has been very nice to me." Robert sarcastically replies with "yeah, well welcome to New York." Giselle answers with "thank you!" As an idealist, she tries to see the best in everyone, acts nicely towards people, and is shocked when anyone is angry or mean. She is such an optimist that she does not even realize that Robert's comment is sarcastic.

Throughout the movie, Robert and Giselle are constantly teaching each other about their love lives. Giselle is about to marry a prince that she has known for only a day, and Robert convinces her to go on a date with him so they can get to know each other before making a commitment. Robert has been dating a woman for five years and still has not married her. It is clear that the woman is not entirely convinced that Robert loves her, so Giselle convinces Robert to send her an exsquisite bouquet of flowers carried by two doves, something an idealist in a relationship would do. In watching Robert and Giselle teach each other things, I realized that in life, love, and history we need to find a balance between idealism and pragmatism. While it may be fun to be completely idealistic like Giselle, she needs some practicality in her life to prevent her from getting hurt. On the other end of the spectrum, Robert's life is very safe, but also boring, which is why he needs idealism to make him take chances and dream big. This lesson can extend beyond the movies into real life-- idealistic and pragmatic people should team up, because they balance each other out.

Fear of Pumpkin Attacks

This weekend, a giant inflatable pumpkin stack in my family's front yard was torn apart by vandals. It was clear that they had taken the Obama sign out of our yard and used it to tear the material sometime Sunday night. Monday morning we found the pumpkin with giant holes in it, and the Obama sign taken out of our yard, laying next to the pumpkin with a bent wire. We had a different Obama sign that was stolen, and now this one was used to destroy our fun Halloween decoration. My family called the police to report the vandalism, and they came over for an interview Monday night. They told my dad that yard signs belonging to both the McCain and Obama signs have been vandalized and stolen recently in Wilmette, and suggested that we put the sign away. I think it is terrible that people cannot do something to express their political views as simple as a yard sign without having to worry about vandalism. People need to be able to express their political opinions without fear that their personal property will not get punished. During the Salem witch trials, people were afraid to express their opinions because they could get hung for disagreeing with the government. While a hanging and a pumpkin attack are two entirely different stories, the question still remains the same; do we hide our opinions from fear of getting hurt, or speak out and risk the consequences? My family is deciding to speak out by putting the Obama sign out during the day to show our support, but taking it down at night to make sure our other Halloween decorations are not vandalized. In this case, we were able to find a solution to speak out but still be safe, but that is not always the case. During the times of McCarthyism, government officials who spoke out against McCarthy's policies were punished, because this was viewed as a suspect for communism.

An Argumentative Editorial

When I started reading this article, "An Absence of Leadership" in the New York Times, I thought it was going to have a poor argument. The opening sentence is; "It took President Bush until Wednesday night to address the American people about the nation’s financial crisis, and pretty much all he had to offer was fear itself." This is a very opiniated statement, and was not backed up by many facts. For those like me that did not see President Bush address the nation and supposedly offer fear, it would have been very helpful facts to serve as logical evidence. Later in the article, the author does show how Bush offers fear, by saying "our entire economy is at danger (if Congress does not pass his bailout plan.)" It would have been helpful for including evidence at the beginning, to make the reader want to read more.

Personally, I first became interested in the article when the author brought into consideration Barack Obama and John McCain's reactions to the financial crisis. "Given Mr. Bush’s shockingly weak performance, the only ones who could provide that are the two men battling to succeed him. So far, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is offering that leadership." I have been reading so many articles that are either pro Obama or Pro McCain. I have seen many articles that point out all the things that one of the candidates is doing wrong. It is refreshing to have a unique viewpoint on the well-discussed subject of the upcoming election. I agree with the author's statement that "What makes it especially frustrating is that this crisis should provide each man a chance to explain his economic policies and offer a concrete solution to the current crisis." The article is very strong in logical evidence with direct quotes from Obama and McCain's response to the financial crisis. The article also uses ethical/emotional evidence when it mentions that the increase in taxes are coming out of our pocketbooks, and that Bush's current plan does nothing to improve the taxes for most Americans. People who are taxpayers (everyone) can relate to this and will feel like their taxes should improve and thus want to agree with the article's argument.

Are they really sixteen?

While watching the Olympics this summer, many people (including myself) were shocked at how young the Chinese gymnasts looked. "There's no way those girls are sixteen!" I would hear people comment. An Article in the NY times addresses both sides' arguments about whether or not the gymasts are sixteen. While reading this article, I noticed that some points of either sides' arguments were either strong or weak in logic (logos).

photo: He Kexin in the middle with a gold medal for uneven bars

Bela Karolyi, a coach to both US and Romanian countries argued that the gymnasts are not sixteen. He pointed out that it was easy for the government "of an authoritarian country to alter paperwork," and say that the girls are 16 on their passports. He also used the fact that the girls still have their baby teeth as evidence. I think this is very logical, because people lose most of their baby teeth when they are 16. He also points out that the passports could have been changed, and the passports were the only evidence provided in support that the girls were sixteen. However, Steve Penny, President of the USA gymnastics did not have a logical argument. He pointed out that in email messages and internet chat rooms, gymnast He Kexin was said to be 14. Chat rooms, email messages, and Wikipedia (also mentioned in this argument) are not valid sources, and therefore make the argument seem illogical.

The Chinese officials responded to this argument by providing the New York Times with copies of the passports that say the girls are 16. This is logical evidence, because a passport is an official document. However, the online records and 2007 National registration lists say that He is 14. This is also logical evidence, because the registration for the gymnasts must be correct in order for them to compete.

This argument is a proposal argument, and begs the question "What actions should be taken?" (see pg 27 of Everything is An Argument). I think that the argument plays an emotional concern to many other countries teams. By having younger gymnasts, the Chinese team has an advantage because the younger gymnasts can perform tricks easier and are psychologically less worried. Therefore, I think the argument should be investigated more on both sides, and I would suggest that the arguers strengthen their logical evidence. Right now, there are not enough correct facts to determine one side as the truth.

Pilgrims Close To Home

I have been very interested in the Pilgrims ever since we learned in class that they were the first group to set up a democracy. I came across a news article in the Chicago Tribune about a Pilgrim Baptist Church on the South Side of Chicago being renovated. The Bronzeville Church was built in 1891, and it was destroyed when workers rebuilding the roof accidentally set it on fire. Fortunately, there are many artifacts and photos salvaged from the fire. They will use the artifacts and photos to replicate the church, in addition to building a social services building and a cultural center on the same ground. This Church is also historically significant because it was the home to the African-American gospel movement in Chicago. It continues to play an important role in the community today because of its historical significance.

I think it is great that they are restoring this Church, because both the Pilgrims' journey and the Gospel movement are important historical events. The article also mentions that this Church is an architectural marvel, and rebuilding it will be a window into the past. I am glad that they are also building a cultural center to educate people about the history and culture of the people who used to live in the Church.
I also think it interesting how the Church was first used by the Pilgrims, then used as a synagogue, then used by African Americans. This shows that no matter what race or religion people are, they all want a place to pray, and look to the Church during perilous times. The article mentions that this Church is very significant for families whose ancestors went there, and I think rebuilding it will help connect those people with their past.