Student Athletes Receiving Special Treatment

In “Athletes and Education”, a writing by Neil H. Petrie, expresses the concern that athletes in school systems have special treatment over other students. Neil believes that star athletes at some schools are handed everything on a golden platter by teachers and coaches. He states that student athletes at colleges receive preferential treatment. Athletes are able to cut some classes, while still being able to slide through. They may receive special dorms, meals, or personal tutors. However, these student athletes are protected from the harsh reality of the real world and may not be prepared by the time they graduate. Neil brings up a good point when he evaluates what will happen to these athletes once they graduate. Some may end up being just fine, if they have a pro contract to lean on in the future, but what about those who are discarded once they are no longer needed for college athletics? They will obviously not be prepared for the real world, since they are used to being bottle-fed all through their education.

In my own personal experiences, being a student and an athlete at my high school, I do not think things are quite the same. Things are not handed out to student athletes, and the same goes for students who have a job or other major time commitment. If anything, they have more responsibilities to deal with. Sure, students are allowed to miss class if they have a scheduled game, but they are always expected to make the work up. Student athletes are graded using the same criteria of any other student. However, looking at the college setting I can see why student athletes are put on a pedestal. They represent the university and if a star player does not receive adequate grades in a class, the whole team will suffer. Even so, students should never receive special treatment, just because they are involved in sports. It is unfair to the other students in the class, but mostly it is unfair to the student athletes who will not be prepared after graduation.

My Response to "Some Don't Like Their Blues at All"

I think the article “Some Don’t Like Their Blues at All”, by Karyn M. Lewis, focuses on the stereotypical all-American girl and guy. The Fila jeans ads talked about in the article showed a dark, macho guy in contrast to an innocent white girl. These advertisements show that all men should be tough and controlling, while women can be giggling all the time, as long as she is pretty. In the background of the picture of the ripped guy is a scene of violent struggle between two football players. The background of the girl shows a passionate picture of a girl in a bikini lounging on the beach. This also shows the advertisement’s stereotypical approach on the roles of gender.

Not only does the advertisement play off of the stereotypical looks of men and women, but the slogans take it one step further when they pull in sexual body parts. The slogans “Some like it hard” and “Some like it soft”, represents not only the sexual body parts of the sexes, but also hints at how genders should be in social life. For example, the article says these slogans show that men should act “hard” and powerful while women only need be soft and sensual.

By looking at this advertisement, people may not feel they add up to the look showed in the pictures. Boys may feel like they are weak and undeserving to be considered masculine. Girls may feel they are not pure or pretty enough to be considered desirable. By making us feel inferior, Fila hopes consumers will buy the jeans to meet the social requirements and become one step closer to the “ideal” look. This article alienates the sexes from one another and admonishes all belief that either sex can be compassionate and strong at the same time. I disagree with the advertising methods Fila uses, because I think it poses an extreme ideal of how genders should look and act like.

"Surfin' The Louvre"

An article by Elizabeth Larsen, called “Surfin’ the Louvre”, presented a debate about whether or not you have to be in a museum to learn, or if you can have the same experience on the World Wide Web. The author describes her criteria includes virtual tours and many pictures of different exhibits around the world, from places like Italy to Japan. This kind of information readily available to students on the web seems like a great learning experience. However, this article made me evaluate whether I believe hands-on education can be replaced by a web site with virtual tours.

I think it is a great idea to have exhibits and artifacts from museums all over the world, put on one internet site. Students all over the world will then have these resources with a click of the mouse. It is a given that whenever students are doing research for a project, they cannot fly to Japan or some other foreign country to visit a museum with a certain exhibit they are doing research on. With a site like the one talked about in the writing, there will be many pictures and information about the exhibit, regardless how far away it is.

Even though I believe this website with multiple museums is a good idea and will be beneficiary in many school projects, I do not think it should replace the hand-on learning experience. Many students learn best by seeing and touching things in real life. By having all the information on the website, schools may believe it is okay to use the internet source to replace field trips to museums. There is only so much knowledge a person can gain from the internet. I still think it will be best if students have the opportunity to examine exhibits in real life, so they are able to get the feel of it and ask questions. In conclusion, I think this new form of learning can be used to improve access in museums around the world, but should not be the only tool in the research process.

Am I a victim of "grade inflation"?

An article by Nancy Mitchell, called “Thousands of students victims of ‘grade inflation’”, expresses the concern of grade inflation in different schools. Grade inflation is when teachers give students higher grades than they deserve. Teachers may do this to give their student’s higher self-esteem and confidence. Another reason may be the course is not challenging enough and does not present advanced students with new material. Even though it may look beneficial, in the long run, students will not be prepared for strenuous college education. “Grade inflation establishes the expectation for students that low quality work will suffice when, in reality that doesn’t cut it”. This quote from the writing speaks a lot of truth. What is the point of being a 4.0 honor roll student when you do not have the knowledge and life skills needed to achieve in the real world?

In some cases, I have noticed that some classes at Lima Senior suffer from grade inflation. I especially noticed it in my underclassman courses, where the criteria was aimed at students who do not try. Just by completing my work at mediocre level, I could easily pull off a high “A”. Even though I noticed grade inflation in some cases, not all classes at Lima Senior suffer from it. In the more advanced classes that I have been taking the past couple of years, I had to work hard for the grade I received. I was forced to learn more material and think in abstract ways. The reason my recent classes have been different from those in previous years, is probably because the students who don’t try are weeded out. Instead of automatically being the smartest in the class, I have to work hard to get a decent grade.

Because of my earlier classes affected by grade inflation, I was worried about if I was truly ready to succeed in college. This past year, I took classes at Ohio Northern. I did really well in them and pulled off two “A’s”. It is only because of my more advanced classes that I was able to do this. If all of my classes were like the ones I had freshman year (ex. Physical Science, Algebra 2) I would not have done so well in my college classes. Like it states in the article, grade inflation may give students a higher GPA and confidence, but they will not be prepared for

My Response to "Teaching Tolerance in America"

In the writing “Teaching Tolerance in America”, the author Dudley Erskine Devlin talks about how he feels racial and class divisions among students is tearing apart high schools. I believe he has many great points, even though my experiences at Lima Senior have not been as extreme as some of his examples.

In my own experiences, I do not think students at Lima Senior discriminate against races that are not their own. I notice that in many classrooms, we tend to sit by people who are our same race, but it is not intended maliciously. Overall, I don’t think we even care about the color of people’s skin. I think it is really funny when speakers talk to us about being more tolerant and not focusing on our differences. While the speaker is going on and on, I cannot help but think this is something I already unconsciously know and that he is only bringing more attention to our differences by making a big deal out of it. I think a student from the writing felt the same way when he said he didn’t like having notions of tolerance and acceptance “shoved down his throat”. I think the best way to learn tolerance is by interacting with people of different races and recognizing what all we have in common.

At Lima Senior I somewhat notice, at least more than racial discrimination, gender problems. There are many times I see ladies in the hallways getting unwanted attention from a group of guys. However, Devlin’s idea of having single-sex classes is ridiculous. The real world is not divided up into a male and female section, so why should a school be? There are also many relationships between males and females that are positive.

By reading this writing, I tried to evaluate situations I have been in so that I could relate. Looking at our school, I think we do pretty good in focusing more on personality than appearance. Even though Lima gets a bad rap, I think that overall we are more culturally rounded and tolerant than some schools around us.

We Like What We're Used To

The article “Today’s Special”, by David Sedaris, talks about the high-end New York style restaurant. The writing describes the huge difference between the elaborate food served in these kinds of restaurants and regular American foods, such as hot dogs. While reading his descriptions about the food, I ultimately got that he was also explaining the huge differences between two kinds of lifestyles: the luxurious and the normal. In the article the narrator felt like he did not belong, or even wanted to belong, with the kind of people who regularly went to these upper-class restaurants.

If you were brought up in that kind of life, going to an artsy fartsy restaurant like the one talked about in the writing would be considered normal. You would probably enjoy the foods and the luxurious atmosphere. You would probably be used to dressing in formal just to go out to get a bite to eat. You would probably argue that cooking is an art, because that is how you view it and always have. Foods have all the different colors and textures, but just a different medium- a plate. Chefs can also be creative when it comes to combining different ingredients to create new and unique tastes. I think that maybe some people, the narrator and me included, may disagree with all the hype only because we are not used to the luxurious lifestyle.

Even though this luxurious kind of lifestyle is top choice for some, it is definitely not for me. I could not imagine paying top dollar for food that I can eat in a couple bites. I like feeling full. I would also probably throw up if I had some of the items off the menu from the writing. I have not grown up eating those kinds of food. Personally, I do not think mint would go well with fish at all and I do not consider spiced ham to be even close to what I call “dessert”. I would much rather prefer a hot dog stuffed with hog lips and eyelids. Why? Because that is what I am used to.

Raid Leaves Families Fractured, Especially Children

After reading “Raid Leaves Families Fractured”, a writing by Bruce Finley, I could not help but feel that the United States government were at fault. The issue revolves around an incident where the government (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raided a Swift & Co. meatpacking plant and arrested a number of illegal workers. The illegal workers were locked up immediately and family members had a hard time finding out where they were. A major issue brought up in the writing involved children being left without a parent to look after them. I am not saying I agree with people illegally working in our country and taking advantage of free medical care and subsidies, but the Immigration and Customs Enforcement could have approached the problem at a more humane angle.

Many illegal workers in this meatpacking plant had families to support. Out of desperation, many tried to sneak under the U.S. laws and work in our country. Once again, I am not in favor of illegal immigration, but many innocent children and other family members were affected by this raid. If you look at the situation from a parent’s point of view, it is heartbreaking. Some parents were going to extreme measures and putting themselves on the line to provide for their children and, because of it, got taken away from their children. In many cases, children had to be adopted or were put in the government system. I believe the illegal immigrants could have been dealt with in a different way, so families could at least stay together. I blame the Immigration and Customs Enforcement administration in failing to plan for the repercussions of the raid; mainly, leaving kids parentless and fending for themselves.

I was also heated because the companies who hired these illegal immigrants did not get into any trouble with the law. It is not right to punish the individuals who were working so hard to make ends meet, then let the corporation off the hook. The company is the one that hired these workers and accepted the documentation for employment. Because of this, I believe that the Swift & Co. also contributed to the pain of so many children and should be held responsible. In the end, we are all human and it is not right to treat people, especially children, in this way.

My Response to "Who's A Looter?"

While first looking at the New York Times article “Who’s A Looter”, by Tania Ralli, my immediate response was that the newspaper publishing these photos were being sort of racist. Like many other people, I only looked at the pictures and captions concerning victims of hurricane Katrina and assumed there was racist motive behind it. However, after reading the whole article, it seemed to make more sense. First of all, the pictures were published in two separate newspapers. Each newspaper has a different way of wording things and a different attitude towards its stories. I agree that these pictures could not reflect the prejudice of a single media outlet.

Another good point in the article states that the photographers have guidelines in determining whether they use the words “looting” or “carrying” in their captions. Mr. Martin, the photographer of the picture with the black man, actually saw the man enter a grocery store and come out with these goods. Mr. Graythen, the photographer of the white couple, claimed the couple did not go in the store so had to “draw his own conclusions” in how they got the food. According to the A.P. guidelines that were set in place before Hurricane Katrina struck to determine whether “looting” or “carrying” should be used in captions, both of these photographers did what they were supposed to do.

Even though there can be a huge debate on whether these captions were malicious or not, I think that Mr. Graythen put in best in an email message when he wrote: “Now is no time to pass judgment on those trying to stay alive. Now is no time to argue semantics about finding versus looting. Now is no time to argue if this is a white versus black issue.”

"All’s Not Well in Mind of Margaret Lazarus"

While reading “All’s Not Well in Land of ‘The Lion King’”, I could not help but wonder what was wrong with Margaret. Margaret Lazarus, the author of the writing that can be found on page 418 in “The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers”, bases her argument off the belief that “The Lion King” and other Disney films are focused around stereotypes. I personally believe her methods of determining this are very much flawed and over critical.

First of all, Margaret Lazarus uses the characters from the Disney movie “Beauty and the Beast” to prove a point on how women are shown as subordinate. She says the story is “about a beauty who tames an angry male beast.” It sounds to me like the male character is getting the bad rap in this example. She also used “The Little Mermaid” to support her weak argument on how women are viewed as inferior in Disney films. She whines about how the mermaid gives up her glorious voice and splits her body to be with a prince. Couldn’t that same story line be about a woman’s power of choice to be with her true love. And if I recall, the evil octopus who took the mermaid’s voice away was a woman too. Margaret failed to mention that. If you go into a movie looking for stereotypes, chances are you can skew characters and plots to align with your argument.

Margaret also states that “The Lion King” promotes the stereotype of blacks being ghetto and trashy like the hyenas were portrayed, when she says “the hyenas are dark-mostly black.” If you look at a picture, hyenas can be pretty dark and nearly all are covered by black spots. With black being a common color of evil, nothing to do with a skin color, it is not a surprise that the bad guys in this film were dark. She also went on saying that Whoopi Goldberg, a black entertainer, was the voice of one of the hyenas who talked with a ghetto inner-city dialect. However, she fails to mention the voices of the other two hyenas (Cheech Marin and Jim Cummings) were Mexican and white. While the voice of Whoopi was viewed as entertaining by most, it is sad that some people have to take it into a racist content. This shows again how Margaret has a one-set mind to prove her point.

While reading the conclusion, I could not help but laugh at Margaret’s motive of writing this piece against Disney. She did it for the kids! What kind of sheltered and skewed childhood are Margaret’s kids having that causes them to be “scared and frightened by the ‘Lion King’”. Seriously, I must have been misinformed because I thought it was a Disney cartoon. Being a kid who has grown up watching Disney films, particularly “Lion King” being a favorite, I believe Margaret is looking way too hard to find these “stereotypes.” I think the Disney creators are just making unique characters and storylines to keep people of all ages entertained. They are not portraying a preference of a racist and sexist society by showing bigoted images and attitudes, like Margaret Lazarus argues.

"I'm O.K., but You're Not"

The writing “I’m O.K., but You’re Not”, by Robert Zoellner, proves a great point that people should not judge others’ actions without looking at their own flaws first. The main character is a smoker, who is sitting on the edge of the smoking section in a restaurant when an older couple sits down close by in the non-smoking section. The older man asks the main character to stop smoking, with a “holier than though” attitude. After the couple is done eating, they go out to the car where their two pedigree poodles are waiting. After the car door was opened, the dogs pooped and peed all over the restaurant lawn. The couple then sped off in their gas-guzzling Mercedes with a huge cloud of pollution rising in the air.

This judgmental behavior can be seen in a lot of situations today. Who is to say smoking is worse than polluting the air with your car or not cleaning up after your dog in a public place? I believe that many people have a double-standard and judge other people for things they also do to some extent. Everybody has things they can improve on or change to some extent. Instead of worrying about what other people are doing, people should just worry about themselves.

Arrogance and being judgmental will not get anybody far in life. If you are too busy saying how perfect you are and how imperfect those around you are, you will never improve yourself. Zoellner really expressed this well with the “righteous” couple judging him for smoking. They were too busy caught up in their judgmental lifestyle they failed to see, or even to care, about their own flaws.

Some people may think their lifestyle and habits make them superior to other people. However, who is to say what bad habits are worse than others? Couldn’t being judgmental about smoking be worse than the habit of smoking? Maybe the main problem in society is not smoking, drinking, or letting your dogs relieve themselves on public property, but instead judging others.

A biblical reference I thought of after reading this writing was from John. Jesus was brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery. The scribes and Pharisees believed the just punishment was to have her stoned. To this, Jesus replied “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Obviously, nobody threw a stone. Nobody is perfect, or even close. However, it seems today some people throw stones at everyone they pass.

Matthew 7:4 – “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye’, and behold, the plank is in your own eye?” (Even though a million people already quoted this, I was proud of thinking of it so I am keeping it.)