Blogging Around

1. Austin Bream: His focus was that we encourage that which we condemn, the example given was that society encourages others' disparities in order to sense superiority.

I would like to respectfully disagree with Austin's point of view on society's actions. He says that "Joe's" misfortune was due to society and ultimately put him in jail, but society can't provide a perfect world for everyone. To believe and expect this would be unrealistic, society didn't cause this, rather how he acted in his circumstances did. For one, there's always a choice, he didn't have to steal, there are laws that push for a certain accessible standard of living within the workforce. Also, he states that society allows schools to stay poor, but there are so many ways that these schools are improving and movements being issued that they do. Albeit they don't meet a "suburban" standard, but in any situation some will  be greater than others, not because they "want to be superior" rather they want the best for their area. Austin also states that "Society encouraged his poor childhood by encouraging his father's absence", I believe that society actually looks down upon leaving a family, that it's discouraged. Society didn't encourage it, rather situational choices were made and resulted in Joe's bleak life. Austin then says, "Society encouraged that absence with Joe's existence", again it's unrealistic to believe that society caused Joe's father to leave and then to put Joe in that situation so he suffers, all to have a sense of superiority. Society's heart often goes out towards cases such as these (i.e. charities, political movements, affirmative action, etc.). Nobody gets a good feeling out of this suffering, that they feel better about themselves. Simply, subordination is inevitable in any given culture or society, because of competition, yet competition in life does not necessitate the lowering of others simply the bettering of one's self. It's unfair to put society at fault for situational issues.

2. Ryan Bunney: His focus was that standardized tests test little.

I agree that standardized tests do not encapsulate all of one's intelligence or even how great of a student you may be, but I believe that their is merit. It tests one's diligence in studying, test taking ability, intelligence (not all of it, but a portion of it), and more. There are other methods of admission that do test these lacking areas which is why they work in conjunction with one another- Ryan pointed this out. I could very well say the same thing about college essays, or about one's GPA, and the list goes on and on.

Also, on junior high testing, I would argue that ultimately preparing for the ISAT is beneficial for the students- Ryan brings this up. That it allows for greater resources, teaching, etc. So that it is a good method of determining where resources are due, because all schools prepare greatly meaning that they end up being on a ,give or take, level plane. On the Terra Nova's, I believe the teachers actually do prepare you for the test through everyday instruction, and my experiences show that they do take time to prepare you and have you do well. This all points to schools wanting the best for their students.

I really like your points going both ways, it shows that you recognize both planes of the debate and that you're open minded and remain so throughout your writing and expression.