Ideal Student Number 2

When I first wrote about the “ideal student” in August, I discussed a person who kept working no matter how the circumstances were; a person who would keep working even if they couldn’t figure out a problem quickly, or understand the concept at first. My view on this topic has not changed, but I have a few things to add after my first semester of college. I’ve learned that grades don’t always reflect how good of a student you are, and therefore students shouldn’t be judged based solely on their GPA.

Those of you reading this may think, “Wow, this girl must have done terrible in her first semester, so she’s making excuses.” That is not the case. Actually, I was planning on receiving all A’s this semester until an assignment was returned to me a few days ago in one of my classes. This assignment is a huge part of my grade, and I don’t think I will be able to recover from it. I have worked very hard in this class all semester, but that one grade will ruin my GPA. That doesn’t mean I am a bad student. I worked very hard on the assignment and did everything I could to make a good grade, and I failed. At first I was very upset about this truth. I have not received a B since third grade, that’s with taking 7 AP classes in high school, and now I will most likely get a B in one of my easiest courses of the semester. However, as I started writing this post, I started to think, would an ideal student be upset about a grade? Would an ideal student, one who puts their best effort into everything, whose main goal is to learn, be crushed by a letter grade? I don’t think they would. I think they would be satisfied with their work because of the fact that they did everything they could to learn and everything they could to complete the given assignments to the best of their ability.

Therefore, I have decided to look at that grade in that particular class with a growth mindset, and put it behind me. It will be hard because grades have always been very important to me, but I’ve come to the realization that I can’t do anything to improve my score. I am going to attempt to be my own definition of an ideal student, and appreciate that doing the best I can do and putting in the most effort possible is enough, even if the grade isn’t a reflection.

Communication of Stem Cell Research

Without our thinking domain, people would not even be aware of stem cell research. Our thinking domain involves various forms of communication such as oral, visual, and written communication. All of these methods are used when it comes to stem cell research, and that is why it is currently such a popular and controversial topic in our country.

                

 There are many different examples that come with each form of communication. When a speech, rally, or debate is taking place about stem cell research, then that is a form of oral communication. If there are commercials or advertisements about stem cell research, then that is a form of visual communication. However, the form of communication that I am most familiar with is written communication. As I researched stem cell research, I found a very wide variety of articles and journals, and it was interesting to see the different ways it was communicated. Some articles are written more toward a popular audience, while others are written more towards experts on the subject. The popular articles used language that was easily understandable to everyone, but the scientific journals used more sophisticated language that is hard for the average person to comprehend without significant concentration. Both types of articles portrayed their particular views effectively, but they just used different language to get their point across. The scientific articles used more hard facts with many different tests and experiments as evidence. The popular articles still used facts to support their claims, but they did not include all of the tedious details. Although the popular articles seem like a better read, scientific articles work better if you really want to become educated on the subject of stem cell research, or any subject for that matter.

                  

No matter how stem cell research is communicated, it is obvious that the topic is controversial. The primary issue I saw with stem cell research is morality. Especially when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, many people think it is morally wrong. Those against it say that if researchers didn’t do tests on the embryos that they would eventually become a human being, and therefore they are committing murder. People for the research argue that if the research didn’t take place, then the embryos would be discarded, and therefore they wouldn’t become a human being anyway. Each side of this issue is communicated effectively through various forms of communication such as articles, advertisements, commercials, etc.

                  

I believe that the different methods of communication work the best depending on what type of information a person is searching for. If someone just wants to know what is currently happening with stem cell research, then an advertisement or a commercial would work best. If a person wants to develop a quick opinion on the subject, then a popular article would suffice. But if a person really wants to become educated about stem cell research, then they should listen to a debate or read a scientific journal. When it comes to the controversial issues, I am personally for embryonic stem cell research. I understand what people opposing stem cell research are arguing; developing embryos will eventually become a human being, and I do believe that it is wrong to destroy them. However, if the embryos are going to be discarded anyway, then I don’t see the problem with using them to benefit science and medicine. 

Preliminary Argument Against Gender-Divided Classrooms

Gender divided classrooms is a fast developing issue in this country. People are beginning to understand that boys and girls learn differently, and therefore think that they should be separated in their education. This may make sense if you just look at the learning differences, but what about all the other effects this would have on our society? Same sex classrooms would cause a huge gap in the student’s social skills, a more disruptive classroom environment, and possible questions of discrimination.

If boys and girls are separated in the classroom, they will miss out on important social skills. Girls would not know how to behave around boys, and boys would not know how to act around girls. In fact research shows that “the formative years of children are the best time to expose them to the company of the other gender, in order that they may learn each others’ behavior and be better prepared for adult life” (Jones). Therefore, if boys and girls are not placed together in their education, a social gap will form that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

Boys and girls are said to distract each other from education, especially in their adolescent years. This statement makes it seem like gender divided classrooms is the answer, but is the statement even true? I’m sure it is to an extent, but other sources say that boys and girls are actually a good influence on each other. In fact, since girls “usually exhibit greater responsibility than boys of the same age”, co-gender classrooms often have a more focused environment (Jones).

Gender divided classrooms also raise questions of discrimination. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that the practice of allowing single sex classrooms on a public school violates several state and federal laws, including Title IX and the equal Educational Opportunities Act. Also, if same sex classrooms were put into action, parents would most likely complain constantly that boys are getting a better education than girls or vice versa.

Overall, I do not think gender divided classrooms is a good idea. Not only because of the gap in social skills, disruptive classrooms, and questions of discrimination, but also because of the approach that would be taken in the gender specific classrooms. The main reason for the separation is that boys and girls learn differently, so when separated a teacher can focus directly on the needs of a gender. But what about students who learn like the opposite sex? With co-gender classrooms, this would not be an issue because the teacher would be teaching towards all the kids, but with same sex classrooms, where specific genders are being addressed, those student’s needs would not be met.

Boys Falling Behind?

The issue of boys vs. girls in the classroom is a very interesting topic that has many different opinions. In one particular article, The Gender Gap: Boys Lagging, taken from a segment of 60 Minutes, the view is that boys are “lagging behind”. This is a fairly common view among the American population, and this article shows a few examples where it is happening, it gives reasons why, and it states a few ideas on how to fix it.

            

One example mentioned in the article had to do with a high school in Massachusetts. At this high school, the valedictorian had been a girl for the last nine years. It was also said that “girls took home nearly all the honors, including the science prize” (Kohn). Also, 70 to 80 percent of the students in AP classes were girls, and “three out of four leadership positions, including the class presidents, are girls” (Kohn). The article then talks about how there are statistically more boy geniuses than girl geniuses, but a lot more boys are found at the bottom of the academic ranks. Why is this happening?

           

The article says there are a few different answers to that question. Dr. Michael Thompson, a school psychologist, says that girls are being told to go for it and are getting a great amount of support, while boys get a lot of mixed signals about what it means to be masculine and what it means to be a student. Another opinion is that boys’ academic problems somewhat come from the results of feminists. Christine Hoff Sommers, a former college professor, says that in order to advance girls, they exaggerated how vulnerable girls are, and they understate the needs of boys. Sommers also talks about groups like AAUW (American Association of University Women) and feminist scholars. She says that these people published a lot of studies and popular books depicting girls in crisis, and she believes this effort on the behalf girls waged into a “war” against boys. So how do we fix this so-called war?

            

There are a few answers provided in the article for this question as well. One solution they present is for school to recruit more male teachers and another solution is to have gender-divided classrooms. These methods work because the teachers are able to “use more physical activity and competition in the all-boy classrooms and tailor the courses to boys' tastes, with more books on topics like war and science fiction” (Kohn). It is shown that one school that did this had their boy’s test scores jump dramatically.

            

Gladwell, the author of Outliers and Dweck, the author of Mindset would probably possess different opinions about this article. Gladwell would most likely agree with this article. Since he believes success has a great deal to do with opportunities, he would agree that boys are not given as many good options as girls and are therefore less likely to succeed. “But they also had a big head start, an opportunity that they neither deserved nor earned. And that opportunity played a big role in their success” (Gladwell 30). Gladwell would believe that girls had a head start, which played a pivotal role in their success. Dweck, however, would probably take a different view. She is obviously more about mindsets rather than opportunities. She believes that people who have growth mindsets can basically do anything as long as they never give up and keep trying. Therefore, she would see girls sudden rise in education as a result of having more of an open mind towards learning. “Believing talents can be developed allows people to fulfill their full potential” (Dweck 48). By looking at this quote, it is obvious that Dweck does not hold opportunities of high importance; she thinks people become successful by believing in themselves.

           

I think the article presents a good point. It statistically shows how boys are lagging behind, and then it gives views on why this is happening and how to fix it. I believe the main reason for boys falling behind is the view they have towards education. This is definitely not true for all boys, but I do believe many think that there are more important things in life other than school (like girls athletics, ect.). They think that as long as they do okay in high school, they can still go to college, begin working hard, and end up getting great, high-paying jobs. (Again this does not apply for all boys; I'm just basing my opinion of my friends from high school) However, since they didn’t work hard in high school and developed those bad study habits, they are not prepared for college, and therefore do not do as well as girls. Moreover, I do agree that boys are falling behind girls, but I think it could be improved very easily. It’s not that boys are suddenly not as smart, its simply they just don’t care as much.

Reference:

Kohn, David. "The Gender Gap: Boys Lagging Behind." 25 May 2003. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

He said, She said

After reading Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell and Mindset by Carol Dweck, I’ve come to the conclusion that these books, however in the same genre, are very different. One area they seem to disagree on is the issue of gender differences. Throughout Outliers, Gladwell seems to take the view that it doesn’t matter if you’re a boy or girl; anyone can be successful if they have enough talent and are given the right opportunities. However, in Mindset, Dweck addresses the difference between boys and girls, and she explains how these differences alter their lifestyles.

            

Throughout Outliers, Gladwell uses many different examples of people who have succeeded and how they did it. In these examples, he does not favor a specific gender. Sure he explains how Bill Gates, the Beatles, and several other prestigious male figures succeeded, but he never implies that these people would not have succeeded if they were not male. He simply says they had talent, they were given great opportunities, and they made the most of it. For example, the Beatles were given the great opportunity to play in Hamburg, and that allowed them to perfect their great talent. “All told, they performed for 270 nights in just over a year and a half… ‘They were no good onstage when they went there, and they were very good when they came back’” (Gladwell 50). This shows how lucky the Beatles were to be given an opportunity like Hamburg, but Gladwell never mentions anything about gender.

            

Later on in Outliers, Gladwell uses the stories of females to support his points. For example, in the chapter “Rice Paddies and Math Tests,” Gladwell explains his reasoning to why people from some countries are better than others. He says that it is because the persistency in their blood that is passed down from their ancestors who worked in the rice fields. To show an example of how this can affect a person’s math ability, he talks about Renee doing a math problem. At first she does not understand the problem, but “she keeps going and going and simply won’t give up” (Gladwell 245). Eventually, she gets the right answer, and Gladwell shows that a lot of people could be better at math if they would simply put more effort into it. By paralleling Renee to the “high math society,” it is obvious that Gladwell believes men and woman are of equal standard.

            

This is not the case in Carol Dweck’s Mindset. Dweck doesn’t necessarily think that they are different intelligently, but more in the way they think. For example, she says, “Many females have a problem not only with stereotypes, but with other people’s opinions of them in general” (Dweck 78). She goes on to explain why this happens. She says that boys are constantly getting criticized and constantly calling each other names, so eventually they just get used to it. Girls on the other hand are scolded very little compared to boys, so when they do get criticized, they think it must be true. Dweck says that even Frances Conley, “one of the most eminent neurosurgeons in the world,” lets comments from her colleagues “fill her with self-doubt” (79). Dweck then states that this is what explains the gender gap in math and science.

            

Moreover, after reading these two books, it is obvious that Gladwell and Dweck have different views on gender. It seems like Gladwell believes success has nothing to do with gender, but more on talent and the opportunities given to improve that talent, while Dweck addresses how the different methods of thinking may cause boys to surpass girls in some areas such as math and science. I understand both views, but I ultimately agree with Gladwell. I don’t think gender has anything to do with who succeeds, and I do believe that success is generated from talent, hard work, and opportunities. I believe Dweck is correct in saying that most girls dwell too much on other’s opinions; I just don’t think this affects their work. I don’t like to get criticized, but I still do fine in math and science. In fact, math is my favorite subject and chemistry is probably second. Therefore, although each outlook is somewhat understandable, I agree with Gladwell’s balanced view on gender.

Success is the Disease of Me: Gladwell's Response

The quote, “success is the disease of me,” actually comes from Mindset by Carol Dweck, not from Outliers. It’s hard to say whether or not Gladwell would agree with this statement or not. Throughout his book, he mostly talks about how people become successful, but he never really talks about how they reacted when they reached their goal. However, Gladwell’s writing hints towards a negative response to this quote.

            

In his book Gladwell talks about many different ways people can become outliers, which, in this book means successful. He first talks about the Matthew Effect. This is basically about people are blessed with an early success, and because of that early success they are given more opportunities to improve themselves. An example Gladwell mentions is hockey players. A study was done that showed how a lot of the professional hockey players are born in the early months of the year: January, February, and March. This is because the eligibility cutoff for age-class hockey is January 1^st. As a result, the children born in the early months are a lot more mature, and therefore better hockey players than the kids who were born later on in the year. Since those kids were better, they were put onto all star teams which allowed them to have better coaches, better teammates, and they were able to play much more games per year. This is all very interesting, but what happened once those players became very successful? Do they use that as a reason to keep trying? Or do they start to feel the pressure and start to lose confidence? Gladwell never addresses any of these issues, so it is unclear how he would feel about success at this point.

            

However, later on in the book, Gladwell starts to talk about a man named Chris Langdon. He first talks about how smart he is. He talks about his IQ, a game show trivia game he won, and many other things to attribute his extreme intelligence. But then Gladwell goes on to explain why he fails. He makes the point that IQ isn’t everything and that people must possess other skills in order to be successful. When he talks about Langdon’s failure, it almost seems as though he is looking down on him because he wasn’t able to succeed. It also seems like Gladwell thinks Chris Langdon’s life is already over; that just because he didn’t finish college, he cannot succeed in life. By using all this information, and by analyzing Gladwell’s writing style, it is obvious that he cares a lot about success, and I do not think he believes the quote, “success is the disease of me.” In fact, it seems that Gladwell sees success as a reward for taking advantages of talent and opportunity, not a disease that will ruin your life.

            

Moreover, I believe Gladwell disagrees with Carol Dweck’s quote. He thinks of success as more of an end point after putting forth a lot of time and effort, therefore being a rewarding outcome. If he would observe the lives of people who have had success, he might take on a different opinion. But right now it seems like Gladwell views success as nothing but a positive experience. 

Natural

 Am I a natural at something? That is a very hard question to answer because I first have to think about what it means to be a natural. Is there any such thing as a natural? Can you really just do something for the first time and be great at it? I don’t think you can. I think you can have talent, and it may take less hard work to be good at something, but I don’t think someone can be good without work or practice.

            

For example, some people may say that I am a natural at sports. I played varsity basketball, soccer, and tennis all through high school, and I was pretty good at them. But how did I become good? Did I just decide to go out for the teams in 9^th grade and end up being a “natural”? No. I had played tennis since I was six, basketball since I was five, and soccer since I was four. I had been going to practices for them basically all of my life, and I had put in a lot of hard work.

            

Another thing people may think I am a natural at is school. I have always gotten straight A’s, and I have always scored pretty well on the standardized tests. But I don’t think I was born with that ability. I knew just as much as the other kids when I first came to school. I think it had more to do with how hard I tried and listened in school. If I would not have listened or done my homework, than I wouldn’t have been able to get the good grades.

            

Something I would never be considered a natural at is art. I am just not good, and I have never been able to draw anything. I believe most people who are good at art were born with the ability. I’m sure there have been a few individuals who have worked extremely hard in order to be an artist, but most artists were born talented.  For example, when I was younger, I would always try to draw pictures, and they always turned out terrible. On the other hand, my friend Amy could draw very well, and she always won the different contests for our school. Amy and I had the same amount of experience, but she was just naturally good at art, and I was not. However, if Amy stopped drawing and I practiced every day, I would eventually pass her because of the effort I was putting forth.

            

Moreover, I believe some people may have more talent than others when it comes to certain things, but that doesn’t always matter. If someone with talent never practices, and someone without talent practices every day, who will be more successful? I believe the one who practices every day will be, and that is why it is important to work hard no matter how good you are at something. Because eventually, relying on your talent will not be good enough when you compare it to the people who are putting in massive amounts of time and hard work.