Wednesday, December 11, 2013

About This Blog

          I know you may be thinking who is she to criticize the public school system? She's nobody. But that's my point exactly. We are raised to think that just because I'm young and haven't finished college and don't have a PhD, I'm nobody. I disagree. Sure, I may be biased, but my thoughts and opinions on education are perfectly valid, as they pertain to me. I happen to be an expert on my education. I don't claim to be the voice of every student, I'm just stating my personal opinions on the matter, something I encourage everyone to do: not only to know their opinions, but to let them be known. So I'm leading by example, hoping others follow suit. I hope this blog empowers you to ask yourself what does or doesn't work for you and why… What could be done to make it better?
          In this blog, I ponder and discuss what could be done to improve education. Now that I've emerged into adulthood, I've discovered just how ill-prepared I am for life and how much my education has deprived me. Crying and whining about it isn't going to fix it, so instead I've got some hot-n-ready constructive criticism for the big guys issuing our education, whoever they are. Here are some classes that would have actually prepared me for my future.


  1. Hi,
    You make some excellent points, but I would like to suggest that you change the words, "arguing with parents" to debating or discussing with parents.Some parents will be immediately turned off when you suggest that young people should argue with their parents, and if you want a real debate or discussion, no point in turning off the other party by engaging in an argument.

    Also you might want to specify the age at which a debate or discussion is realistic when the folks lay down the law. Or is a debate in order? Sometimes parents are right, you know :):)

    Parents are, after all, the products (victims?) of the same horrible education system that you are going through and taking issue with. .

    You seem to have an in dependent mind, which is great, but why use the word "collectively" when you mean individually. No one collectively submits anything, rather we individually contribute to discussions or debates.

    I can appreciate you wanting to see everyone get along, but try to imagine a world where everyone did get along, a world where there would be no need for debates, discussions, or arguments, etc., Sounds like some kind of utopia, doesn't it?

    Isn't it because we are each gifted with the ability to think for ourselves that we are each unique? But is the ability to think about things sufficient? How many of us know how to think, how to analyze, how to critically think and how to be skeptical?
    I would like to recommend a book to you that is very likely to make you thiunk and show you some of the "tricks" of thinjubng, It is called "Basic Economics", and it is available from Amazon and other major book sellers. The unique thing about this book is that it is not merely about economics. It uses zero charts and graphs. It explains the myths and fallacies of economics clearly, and looks at many sides of the issues.

    By the way, I am almost 75 years old, was born in the USA but have lived most of my life outside the USA, and hold two advanced degrees in Marketing and Management.

  2. Howie,
    Thank you so much for taking the time to read and respond to my blog!
    I can understand your alarm at my statement regarding arguing with one's parents. I don't mean to encourage anyone to argue with their parents for the sake of arguing. However, the utopia you describe in which there are no disagreements is not the world we live in. Parents and children argue all the time, and I believe these arguments are healthy. Arguing an issue is one of the most effective ways of learning, and although the word carries a negative connotation, this connotation stems directly from the fact that many people don't know how to argue nicely. Arguing can be perfectly respectful and polite, and even educational. Arguing is the only way to get to the heart of an issue--to be open to considering both sides. This is exactly why I feel it's necessary to teach students how to argue both effectively and "nicely." I think many parents and children could agree that arguing can be infuriating and ultimately ineffective. This is exactly why I think that children ought to learn the "rules" of arguing, and what approach is likely to work best, and which will aggravate the problem.
    For instance, the book you recommended, "Basic Economics," you mention "it looks at many sides of the issue." This is arguing. This is debating, and it's what I try to do within my writing, and it's what you and I are doing as we speak, and I embrace it as one of the most beautiful gifts humanity is blessed with--the ability to disagree. I hear your side, and you've even inspired me to write a post about this very matter, but I stand by my word choice because I do believe students and parents could both benefit from learning how to argue properly. But I also realize the issue of arguing goes deeper than I thought.
    I think even you could agree that arguing does have its merits, given you took the time to argue your point in the form of a comment. I like to think of everything in terms of cause and effect, and if my writing hadn't caused you to let your argument be known, I would never have heard it or even considered it. I feel nothing but enlightened by this argument, and I hope you do too.

  3. Hi Dakota,
    I never said that it was I objecting to the use of the term "arguing with parents".. What I said was, "Some parents will be immediately turned off when you suggest that young people should argue with their parents..." In fact it was a parent of two children (now adults) that mentioned this to me.
    Having once been a child, and being a parent, I well understand that parents and children can and sometimes do argue, although where I live children do not argue with their parents, and take care of their parents when they are too old to work. But I live in a very different culture. . . However, my point is if you are trying to be persuasive, why use a term that also has a negative definition as "an exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way."?

    On the other hand if you are not trying to be persuasive, then any terminology will do.