Overall, I thought the student work symposium was awesome. While it took some reflection on my part, I realized that I gained a huge amount of useful information from attending the work symposium. Primarily, I was fascinated by the symposium in general. While taking Dr. Burks’ methods class, she discussed attending these large events and the etiquette that should be prescribed. She had discussed the seemingly mandatory presence at a friends’ poster, so I too went to everyone I know and listened to them speak.
The real influence the event had on me though was reinforcing the belief that Southwestern is first and foremost a place of academia. All of these studies were going on behind my back and only came to me for a few minutes and in the form of a giant poster. What I didn’t see was each of these students working their asses off. The sleepless nights and extended stays in the computer lab must have been present for damn near everybody there. Furthermore, most of these projects were done with a few students and a professor. This, for me, is an essential part to why I came to southwestern. It both excites me and terrifies me. Finally, I am allowed to be a part of some small nugget of academia about which someone in the world somewhere might care. Not even that, but I’ll be spending one on one time with a professor in my field for an entire semester.
This symposium also helped me with my current classes. I’m at the stage where I have to take classes because upper level classes that I want to take have prereqs, such as general chemistry. I hate the class and the subject matter and would like nothing more than to never open my chem. book again. And yet, the symposium helped me realize that I’m not ready to work one on one with a professor yet. There is still much to learn, even if it’s the drive of being persistent.
I did enjoy one poster in particular. A friend of mine, Matthew Dorris, presented on toxicity levels of chromium and lead in dillo dirt. Completed with Dr. Wiegend with whom I’m taking a class now, Matthew showed me the importance of chemistry as a field… even if it is taking metal out of dirt.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Paideia
At first, I was somewhat hesitant about being able to maintain order and keep our agenda going forward. I should have been because it was fairly chaotic. As it turns out however, I didn’t care then and I still don’t. The kids and us both enjoyed hanging out and having fun and also benefited more substantially. Also, more personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the nostalgia that came with playing games like four-square with these kids again. I was fairly disturbed to find all new rules waiting for me though…
The destruction of our plan started almost immediately, when we arrived and they were completely unaware of our meeting for the day. Daniel just rounded up some kids and we went outside and got them into a circle. The first thing we did was a name game, where they would catch a ball, say their name, and throw it to someone else. They were supposed to remember who they threw it to so that we could repeat it and time it. Needless to say, they forgot to whom they had thrown the ball and it disintegrated quickly. We then played mafia which was a disaster. We barely made it through one round since they were all cheating. The funny part was that I could still convince them that they were wrong and all with very little effort. We then played chain tag which was more effective, but eventually died like everything else. We ended up splitting into groups and playing basketball, foursquare, and jackpot.
I realized that improvisation on our part is key. Furthermore, these kids have virtually no attention spans. Is it that hard to imagine that a structured program is the last thing these kids want to listen to. It’s much easier and more effective to connect with them doing something they like to do. Kids don’t give a crap about “conflict resolution” when they are there to have fun. I think the kids both enjoyed and benefited from our presence, if only to make a friend.
I think the sports will be effective during our next meeting. There are a lot of choices, but we may not be able to maintain it even so. I think we will have to be more flexible than last time and understanding that kids will be drifting in and out and going home and moving around. That doesn’t mean that they’re not learning. They are and it’s how kids best learn. It doesn’t take some bullshit program to reach kids. Playing games and correcting them when they’re not sharing and making sure everyone throws to everyone else…. This is how kids best learn.
The destruction of our plan started almost immediately, when we arrived and they were completely unaware of our meeting for the day. Daniel just rounded up some kids and we went outside and got them into a circle. The first thing we did was a name game, where they would catch a ball, say their name, and throw it to someone else. They were supposed to remember who they threw it to so that we could repeat it and time it. Needless to say, they forgot to whom they had thrown the ball and it disintegrated quickly. We then played mafia which was a disaster. We barely made it through one round since they were all cheating. The funny part was that I could still convince them that they were wrong and all with very little effort. We then played chain tag which was more effective, but eventually died like everything else. We ended up splitting into groups and playing basketball, foursquare, and jackpot.
I realized that improvisation on our part is key. Furthermore, these kids have virtually no attention spans. Is it that hard to imagine that a structured program is the last thing these kids want to listen to. It’s much easier and more effective to connect with them doing something they like to do. Kids don’t give a crap about “conflict resolution” when they are there to have fun. I think the kids both enjoyed and benefited from our presence, if only to make a friend.
I think the sports will be effective during our next meeting. There are a lot of choices, but we may not be able to maintain it even so. I think we will have to be more flexible than last time and understanding that kids will be drifting in and out and going home and moving around. That doesn’t mean that they’re not learning. They are and it’s how kids best learn. It doesn’t take some bullshit program to reach kids. Playing games and correcting them when they’re not sharing and making sure everyone throws to everyone else…. This is how kids best learn.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Ames Lecture
The idea of gender is no doubt complex, however it is also one that I admittedly know too little about. Basically, I don’t really care what anyone wants to see themselves as, whether it is male, female, or anywhere in between. It’s their body and they can do, see, or portray themselves in whichever way they enjoy. With that said, when watching the Ames lecture on transgenderism and citizenship I couldn’t help but get frustrated.
First, of course it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, no matter of what their color, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc… However, I was frustrated when the speakers made their case for how the state was not doing so. They spoke about “state-sponsored” violence towards trans people and gave very specific, even personal examples. The car crash incident that occurred to one of the speakers was particularly moving on one level, but the speaker tried to prove a huge generalization off of it and it didn’t hold up. The fact of the matter is that these acts, even when done by police, are not “state-sponsored.” Instead, it falls under the simple fact that there are some bad people doing bad things. If they were ever caught, they too would go to jail for breaking the law.
I was also didn’t agree with the approach the authors took when discussing the effects of outside opinion on the trans world. They went straight to murder, even though only a dozen people a year die from transgender-related incidents. Of course it’s unfortunate and needs to be stopped, but it shouldn’t have been emphasized when considering the statistics. Therefore, I don’t think the speakers should have focused so much on the murdering of transgender individuals, but rather the discomfort and confusion that is applicable to a much wider group of people. There remains a huge proportion of the public that is simply uncomfortable when confronted with transgendered individuals. As usual, being different still scares the crap out of some people.
With that said, I understand and agree with the main premise of their argument. There’s a problem and something needs to be done about it. It’s a slippery slope from not protecting one group’s rights all the way to mass genocide. We’re obviously far from the latter, but I’d even say we were far from the former as well. I believe much progress has been made, particularly as the speaker suggests, with the relationship of transgender to race. It’s not a matter of the state not protecting these citizens’ rights, but rather a few assholes abusing their power or just blatantly committing crimes. It’s still a hate crime, but with only twelve incidents a year you have to ask the question, how much more likely is it for a transgendered individual to be murdered than it is for me to be murdered for any trait I can state about myself. I’d be willing to bet that twelve people a year die because they’re white, but it would be absurd to say that something needs to be done about it. Overall, I understand the importance of their main point but believe they went about their argument incorrectly.
First, of course it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, no matter of what their color, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc… However, I was frustrated when the speakers made their case for how the state was not doing so. They spoke about “state-sponsored” violence towards trans people and gave very specific, even personal examples. The car crash incident that occurred to one of the speakers was particularly moving on one level, but the speaker tried to prove a huge generalization off of it and it didn’t hold up. The fact of the matter is that these acts, even when done by police, are not “state-sponsored.” Instead, it falls under the simple fact that there are some bad people doing bad things. If they were ever caught, they too would go to jail for breaking the law.
I was also didn’t agree with the approach the authors took when discussing the effects of outside opinion on the trans world. They went straight to murder, even though only a dozen people a year die from transgender-related incidents. Of course it’s unfortunate and needs to be stopped, but it shouldn’t have been emphasized when considering the statistics. Therefore, I don’t think the speakers should have focused so much on the murdering of transgender individuals, but rather the discomfort and confusion that is applicable to a much wider group of people. There remains a huge proportion of the public that is simply uncomfortable when confronted with transgendered individuals. As usual, being different still scares the crap out of some people.
With that said, I understand and agree with the main premise of their argument. There’s a problem and something needs to be done about it. It’s a slippery slope from not protecting one group’s rights all the way to mass genocide. We’re obviously far from the latter, but I’d even say we were far from the former as well. I believe much progress has been made, particularly as the speaker suggests, with the relationship of transgender to race. It’s not a matter of the state not protecting these citizens’ rights, but rather a few assholes abusing their power or just blatantly committing crimes. It’s still a hate crime, but with only twelve incidents a year you have to ask the question, how much more likely is it for a transgendered individual to be murdered than it is for me to be murdered for any trait I can state about myself. I’d be willing to bet that twelve people a year die because they’re white, but it would be absurd to say that something needs to be done about it. Overall, I understand the importance of their main point but believe they went about their argument incorrectly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)