Successful Student Final

     I used to think being a successful student meant having straight A’s, but after my first year of college, my idea has changed.  People can be successful without having the best grades.  A successful student is one who tries their hardest and obtains the best possible grades and test scores for their capabilities.  But more importantly, a successful student is a person who learns and understands the material of the course. 

     The first part of being a successful student is trying their hardest.  Someone who is lazy and manages to achieve passing grades should not be deemed as successful.  Someone who studies, does practice problems, and puts their best effort into a course and then achieves acceptable grades should be considered successful. 

     The second part of being a successful student is obtaining the best possible grades and test scores for that particular person.   Some people are bad test takers so more than likely their grades will not be as high as those who are great test takers.  So if a bad test taker achieves a “C”, then it is success.  If a good test taker achieves a “C”, then it is probably not a success, unless the course happens to be really tough, like organic chemistry.

     The third and most important part of being a successful student is that they learned and understand the material from the course.  What has a student gained from a class if they received an “A” and learned nothing?  What has a student gained from a class if they learned the material but do not understand how to do it on their own?  They have gained nothing, and the class was a waste of time and, in the case of post-secondary education, money.

     In conclusion, a successful student is one who tries their hardest, obtains the best possible grades and test scores for them, and learns and understands the class material.  Many students go through school and do “okay,” but the successful ones follow this regiment.  Unfortunately, success in this country is usually based on popularity and money, so many students that are successful by my definition, are not successful from other definitions.  Maybe the United States should redefine its definition of success; it might make a difference.

Arguments FOR Single-Sex Classrooms

     My group is for single-sex classrooms.  Although there may be some benefits to coed classrooms, such as social interaction with the opposite sex, there are many problems with coed classes.  For one thing, boys and girls learn differently.  Boys tend be more fidgety during class, while girls tend to be more organized and calm.  Public schools have limited funding, and the funds are used toward an average learning style of both sexes, which overlooks the specific differences of males and females.  From the study we performed, females are showing much less confidence in math classes, than for males, suggesting something needs to change.

     According to our clip from the “Today Show”, 59% of girls from coed classes in Florida scored proficient, where as 75% of girls from single-sex classes scored proficient.  The boys’ numbers had much more of a contrast.  37% of boys in coed classes scored proficient, where as 86% of boys in single-sex classrooms scored proficient.  According to one of our research article’s, when single-sex classrooms are used, social class benefits too (Jost, 2002, p.585).  So people like Marita, who was mentioned in Outliers, would not have count on a lottery school for a quality education (Gladwell, 2008).  Another one of our articles suggest that single-sex classrooms reduce gender stereotyping since the genders are separated during test and instruction time (Jost, 2002, p.573).  With single-sex classes, teachers would also be able to further their education because they will need to be retrained to learn how to teach to their specific gender students.

     Although coed classes have the benefit of a social environment between the sexes, single-sex classes seem to have a lot more benefits.  Even though students would be separated by sex in the classroom, they would not be separated in life.  There are still many social environments for all children to hang out and socialize, like church, coed teams, and the mall.  Schools just seem to work better by not being one.

Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers. New York City: Little, Brown and Company, 2008.

Jost, K. (2002, July 12). Single-sex education. CQ Researcher, 12, 569-592. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

Waiting For Superman

     “Waiting on Superman” is a documentary directed by Davis Guggenheim.  He made the film to show how our school systems are failing students.  The movie is really an eye opener.  It shows countless statistics of how poorly schools are performing.  “Failing factories” are high schools where over 40% of the students do not graduate; across the United States there are thousands.  The documentary shows that success of the student starts with the teacher.  High quality teachers equal good performance of students.  So eliminating low quality teachers seems like the solution, but to fire a teacher, there are innumerable hoops to jump through.  The adults, despite saying they are concerned for the children, are concerned for the adults.  Students in some areas of the nation only have a chance at quality education through two ways 1) pay tuition to a private school or 2) win a school lottery.  For low-income families, the first is near impossible, and the second is simply the luck of the draw.

     Malcolm Gladwell talks about success in his book called Outliers.  His idea of success is basically someone who is born under lucky stars and takes the opportunity given unto them.  However, children born into low-income families are already at a disadvantage, and many of them try to take the opportunities available.  Nevertheless, they fail, not because they did not try hard enough, but because they did not win the school lottery.  In the film, Guggenheim interviewed five children trying to get into lottery schools.  Some of them were KIPP schools, like the school Marita attended in the chapter ‘Marita’s Bargain’.  Of the five children, only two made it (Gladwell, 2008).

     Carol Dweck’s book Mindset is about how people need to change their mindset in order to be successful in life (2006).  The children interviewed in the film had the right mindset, but many of the adults who control the schools had fixed mindsets.  They were more concerned about the teachers.  They could not see that the schools needed improvement, and that the suggested improvements were on the behalf of the students, on the country’s future.

     This movie ties in with the gender-divided classroom project.  The idea of gender-divided classrooms is one of the many suggestions to improve education.  Many arguments are boys and girls learn, behave, and think differently, so why not put them into separate classrooms?  But then the problem arises where people want to argue the idea back and forth.  Like the few people who tried advanced schools like KIPP, people try gender-divided classrooms.  Then, studies show up for and against the idea, like the advanced schools.

     “America equals the land of opportunity” is such an untrue statement.  “America equals the land of opportunity, if you happen to be lucky” fits America better.  It was so heartbreaking to see the students not get accepted into the schools.  Sadly, I knew many of them would not simply because of probability.  The “American Dream” is to be a success, and the children had it.  One girl who was not accepted at KIPP LA wanted to be a vet, nurse, or doctor.  Without quality education, her chances of succeeding in her dreams will become worse as time marches on.  It seems hypocritical to tell kids, “You’re unique, you’re smart, you can do anything you want,” and yet we do little to help them succeed in their dreams. 

     In America we have much more than most of the world does, but at the same time our “good stuff” is going bad.  Every child in America gets educated to some degree, but not a good quality education.  Politicians, teachers, and teacher unions have the power to change most of the issues, but it does not happen.  I do not understand why the teacher unions are so worried about the security of the teachers’ jobs.  I know that is the point of unions, but are not teachers suppose to care for a child’s success in life?  Like parents and pediatricians, are not teachers suppose to care about a child?

     Sometimes I think liberalism has run amuck to the point that people do not care about their fellow man.  Our country is falling apart because politicians only seem to care about getting reelected or receiving a paycheck.  Movie stars, singers, and other famous people are constantly showing their selfish side.  It is ok to look after yourself and others like yourself, but children cannot look after themselves.  They have to be taken care of whether it is food, clothing, or education.  I understand that there would be millions of families hurt if teachers lost their jobs; my families’ income comes from a teacher salary.  But are not more people being hurt because of bad teachers?  Let’s say one bad teacher teaches for ten years, 30 students per year.  The teacher affected 300 students.  Multiply that by how many bad teachers are in America, and you get a big number for how many students are affected.  It does not matter what track the students are on; bad teachers affect all types of students.  I am probably on the “high” track since I am in college.  I had a bad teacher in fifth grade; I taught myself most of the material.  However, I did not read much that year because my teacher did not encourage us to.  My SAT scores suffered for it.  I went from the 80’s and 90’s range, to the 60’s, out of 100.

     I am not sure what the answer to all of this is.  Our country is falling apart is all I know.  Yes, we have it better than most of the world, but that does not mean we will last.  Rome had a great empire at one time, and it prospered.  But eventually, it collapsed.  America is slowly becoming that way.  We are so much in debt, and the politicians making “necessary cuts” seem unconcerned about the education system.  Texas wants to cut billions of dollars in what it gives to its schools (Collins, 2011).  Children will suffer.  Other states will probably follow.  The future for education does not look good.

Bibliography

Collins, G. (2011, February 17). Mrs.Bush, abstinence, and Texas. New York Times , p. A27.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. New York City: Little, Brown and Company.

Columnist Paper

     Gail Collins is a columnist for the New York Times.  She writes a column for the Thursday and Saturday issues.  Her columns lately have been about the absurdities in our government.  She points out several times how officials in our government make judgments and propose laws that make no common sense.  The first column mentioned comes from Thursday, February 3, 2011.

     Collins’ first article in February follows the week of constant snow in New York City and most of the nation.  This article is titled “The Man With the Snow Job”.  She questions who was to blame for all of the snow.  She stated that we could blame the usual scapegoat, George W. Bush.  She describes how Al Gore wanted to blame global warming.  He explained that because of the extra water vapor in the atmosphere, warmer oceans, and warmer air, water is falling as extra-heavy rain and snow.  She mentioned blaming President Obama because he focused more on health care reform than global warming, but the idea of global warming seems to have lost its supporters.  Obama wants to regulate air emissions as much as possible, so the Republicans want to counter that by prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through their power.  Two present senators who oppose global warming say global warming is not real.  One claims that all of the snow disproves global warming, and the other states he cannot support a bill on global warming because of “the personal and political collapse of Vice President Gore.”  Collins points out the absurdity in all of this.  She explains that working with global warming is a win-win.  Even if all the science behind global warming is wrong, it still does not hurt to clean up the environment (Snow Job, Gail Collins, 2011).

     The following week Collins wrote an article titled “Don’t Worry. Be Happy.”  In this article, she is ultimately saying to not worry and to be happy.  So what should we not worry about?  Within the first paragraph, she mentions Egypt, the crazy weather, high costs of food, unemployment, and terrorist threats.  One would think with all of that going on, this country would not have to fret over stupid bills being proposed by our state legislators; unfortunately, we do.  A legislator from South Dakota placed a bill in the hopper that would require every adult in South Dakota to own a gun.  A legislator from Georgia proposed a bill that would allow Georgia drivers to not have licenses.  Luckily, these bills more than likely will not pass.   However, even sound bills are not being passed.  She describes how in the senate, half of the senators only come part-time.  In the house, she shows how Republicans on one particular day just sat around and complained, instead of voting on the issue at hand (Don’t Worry, Gail Collins, 2011).

     The following week on February 17 Collins writes an article titled “Mrs. Bush, Abstinence, And Texas”.  Texas, like many states, is having budget issues, and one way to help buffer the deficit is to cut funds for education.  Barbara Bush raised an alarm by publishing an opinion piece titled “We Can’t Afford to Cut Education” in response to Texas’ ranks of 47 in the nation in literacy, 49 in verbal SAT scores, and 46 in math scores.  In it she states, “In light of these statistics, can we afford to cut the number of teachers, increase class sizes, eliminate scholarships for underprivileged students, and close several community colleges?”  As Collins points out, the answer seems obvious, but Texas plans “to cut about $4.8 billion over the next two years from the schools.”  The governor refused the idea of new taxes and $830 million in federal aid only because the wording of the federal aid specified that it had to be used toward students (Texas, Gail Collins, 2011).

Not only is Texas cutting back on education, they are doing little to help women avoid unwanted pregnancy.  Texas ranks third in teen pregnancies, which are usually the children who need the most help.  Contraceptives are tough to obtain in Texas, even at the college level.  Texas spends a lot of federal funds on abstinence only sex education.  Despite the statistics, the governor insists that abstinence works.  Even though he seems to not help anyone, he “wowed the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, with his states’ rights rhetoric” (Texas, Gail Collins, 2011).

     Collins’ most recent article is titled “Revenge of the Pomeranians.”  In this article she explains how some government officials will shut down nonessential federal employees if something is not done about the budget issue.  The problem is, last year Congress did not pass any appropriations bills, and the most recent one expires next week.  To make things more interesting, the senate has gone on a vacation, after passing one bill over a two-month period.  The senators will resume their positions next week to come up with a plan.  Collins describes how Congress behaves with an analogy of dogs, which is where the article’s title is derived from.  “The House is the deranged Pomeranian that yelps and throws itself against the window and tears up the upholstery 24/7.  The Senate, meanwhile, is like a narcoleptic Great Dane you can hardly rouse for dinner” (Pomeranians, Gail Collins, 2011).

     I would have to agree with Gail Collins in the fact that Congress does not seem to be doing anything.  As my civics teacher in high school warned me, most of the bills placed in the hopper are not discussed and will die.  But even then, why are legislators wasting their time on pointless bills that make no sense?  A few years back, one of West Virginia’s state legislators proposed a bill to ban the sale of Barbie dolls in the state because it gave girls an unrealistic role model.  Who cares if girls play with Barbie dolls or not?  Unless the Mattel Company starts to sell Barbie doll drug dealers, it is a waste of time to be concerned. 

     Legislators should be focused on unemployment, international threats, and the high costs of living.  It seems ludicrous that we elect people to serve us as a communicator for our needs, and yet all we hear is Republicans are trying to block this, or Democrats are trying to block that.  The two major parties need to quit focusing on each other, and focus on what is important…the people.  The document for which our government is based on, the U.S. Constitution, starts out “We the People,” not we the Democrats or Republicans.  The founding fathers thought that phrase was so important that it was written in larger print than the rest of the document.  Our government seems to have diverged from the founding principles.  There are a few who try to help the people, but rarely are their good deeds mentioned.   Instead of being concerned with citizen’s well-being, legislators go around and complain about it.  However, as Collins said in an article title, “Don’t Worry. Be Happy” (Don’t Worry, Gail Collins, 2011). After all, “We Are…” America.

Collins, G. (2011, February 10). Don't worry. be happy. New York Times , p. A23.

Collins, G. (2011, February 17). Mrs.Bush, abstinence, and Texas. New York Times , p. A27.

Collins, G. (2011, February 24). Revenge of the Pomeranians. New York Times , p. A27.

Collins, G. (2011, February 3). The man with the snow job. New York Times , p. A25.

Gender-Divided Classrooms

     “Boys on one side; girls on the other” is a phrase I would sometimes hear in physical education.  On days where I would hear this, my classmates and I would be doing a physical fitness test.  This could be an example of a gender-divided classroom.  However, gender-divided classrooms generally mean boys in one class, girls in a totally separate one.

     For many years people have questioned whether or not to separate classrooms by gender.  Some might say that the presence of both genders make each do worse on their work.  For example, if girls are in a boy dominated science class, the mixed gender scenario would reinforce the stereotype that boys are better at science than girls, and the girls may not do well because of it.  Carol Dweck calls stereotypes “negative labels” and warns against them.  “When stereotypes are evoked, they fill people’s minds with distracting thoughts--with secret worries about confirming the stereotype” (Dweck, 2006, p.75).  If the girls did not know about the stereotype, they may do fine.  I never heard of the stereotype until later in high school, but by that time I was good in math and science so the stereotype had no affect on me.

     Others might say that gender divided classrooms need to be enforced because boys’ and girls’ brains are structured differently.  According to an article in Newsweek, “males have less serotonin in their brains, which…may cause them to fidget more…females have more oxytocin, a hormone linked to bonding (Tyre, 2005, 59).  A principal at Foust Elementary School in Kentucky used this fact to separate the students at his school.  Their test scores were behind, and they needed major improvement.  To go along with the fact, “desks were removed from the boys’ classrooms and they got short exercise periods throughout the day…girls were given a carpeted area where they sit and discuss their feelings” (Tyre, 2005, 59).  Test scores went up dramatically, and the number of discipline problems went down.

     Despite the pros and cons of gender divided classrooms, success is in the eye of the beholder, and there is no third gender to say whether girls really do better than boys or vice versa.  According to Gladwell, success comes to people who employ the 10,000 hour rule and take the opportunities available to them.  He does not single out one gender being more successful over the other.  Some of his example success stories were male; others were female (Gladwell, 2008).

     In my opinion, the following is how gender-divided classrooms should be incorporated.  Gender divided classrooms would be present in elementary and middle school.  In elementary school, boys and girls do not like to associate with each other too much because the other gender has “cooties.”  In middle school, hormones are raging, and that fact alone causes enough trouble.  Mentally and physically, girls tend to mature faster than boys, and gender divided classrooms would help foster this growth.  The learning atmosphere of segregated classrooms would help knock out the stereotypes of boys or girls being dumber.  Both genders would be equally encouraged in every subject.  If comparisons were made between the two genders, the students would not know of the results.  Otherwise, negative levels might form.  High school would be mixed gender classrooms; it would prepare the students for the real world.  By the time the students would reach high school, maturity levels should be closer in range between the two genders.  In addition, with all of those years of stereotypes not being in the forefront of everyone’s minds, the stereotypes should not have any effect on either gender’s learning.  Colleges and universities would choose how they would want to teach their students, either gender mixed or divided.  Students choose the college they want to go to anyway, so they can choose which system they like better.

     In conclusion, gender-divided classrooms should be employed for a certain amount of a child’s life.  It would help remove stereotypes and handicaps placed on mixed gender classrooms.  It would also help foster a child’s growth into a young man or woman.  Although my proposal seems reasonable, gender-divided classrooms is a sticky issue, and there does not seem to be any resolution to the matter in sight.

Girls vs. Boys

     “Girls go to Mars to get more candy bars; boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider” is a saying I remember from elementary school.  None of that saying is true of course, but it brings up the fact that there are some differences in boys and girls. There are some similarities too.

      There are obvious similarities between boys and girls such as two eyes, arms, and legs.  Another similarity is boys and girls can be both mischievous and curious about their world around them.  Both like to learn new things and play or hang out with their friends.  Boys and girls alike can become attached to their parents.  They can do most anything the same, academics, housework, music, and careers.

       There are obvious differences between boys and girls, hence the labels “boy” and “girl”. Boys have an X and Y chromosome; girls have two X chromosomes.  Boys tend to have more hair and a stockier build than girls do.  Girls tend to be more emotional, which is more than likely related to the reproductive side of being female.  Girls like to connect and share their feelings; guys tend to be the opposite.  Most if not all differences between girls and boys are biologically based.  The supposed difference of boys being better in math and science is a stereotype or a negative label.  Dweck warns against negative labels, especially for the fixed mindset person.  “When stereotypes are evoked, they fill people’s minds with distracting thoughts---with secret worries about confirming the stereotype” (Dweck, 2006, p.75). 

       Doctors and nurses have a gender stereotype: “doctors are male; nurses are female.”  This stereotype would coincide with boys are better at math and science because doctors have to go through much more science and math classes than nurses do.  But there are female doctors; there are male nurses.  Gender has no basis in this particular case.  In a job situation such as being a surrogate, obviously only girls could fulfill the job, but very few jobs are gender specific.  According to Gladwell, success comes to people who employ the 10,000 hour rule and take the opportunities available to them.  He does not single out one gender being more successful over the other.  Some of his example success stories were male.  The story of KIPP Academy starred Marita, a girl.  He contributes his whole book to a female, Daisy (Gladwell, 2008). 

      In summary, there are biological, morphological, anatomical, and behavioral differences between girls and boys, but there are similarities too.  In the grand scheme of life, differences between girls and boys only matter when it comes to locker rooms and bathrooms and what specific products need to be made for each side.  Boys and girls can both be successful, as long as they apply themselves.[

---

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. New York City: Little, Brown and Company.

Connections Between Mindset and Outliers

     Mindset and Outliers are two books written by two different authors with two different platforms but they share an underlying theme, success.  Mindset is written by Carol Dweck; Outliers is written by Malcolm Gladwell.  The overall idea of Mindset is a person can achieve success if their mindset is correct.  The overall idea of Outliers is success happens to those under special circumstances.

     In Mindset, Dweck describes two mindsets: fixed and growth.  People with a fixed mindset believe you need “to prove yourself over and over.”  People with a growth mindset believe “your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts” (Dweck, 2006, p.6-7).  Throughout her book, Dweck shows multiple scenarios where people with the growth mindset fared better over the fixed mindset people.  She used examples of athletes, students, children, and coaches.  She illustrated her point that by having the growth mindset, a person can grow their mind and learn what they need or want to learn.  Then, the person achieves success.  However, a person who stays in the fixed mindset will not succeed to the fullest.  They will shy away from opportunities like a vampire in sunlight (Dweck, 2006).

     In Outliers, Gladwell describes how people who have succeeded were born under special circumstances.  Many successful people were born within a time frame to where a new invention would be within their reach, like computers or railroads.  Many of those successful people Gladwell mentioned also had money in their family.  Money is a strong indicator of college education, and poor people, no matter how smart, usually do not go to or do well in college, like Christ Langan for example.  Gladwell also describes how once people found something they love, they worked at it constantly.  By the time they are an expert at it, they had worked on it for 10,000 hours.  The practice helped them improve, and they succeeded in life (Gladwell, 2008).

     Gladwell and Dweck agree on one thing, that success takes practice and special circumstances.  Dweck did not insinuate that people were born under lucky stars like Gladwell.  She did however indicate that in order to succeed the most a person has to have a growth mindset, which could be considered a special circumstance.  Gladwell skirted around the idea but never used the term “growth mindset.”  He commented that people must take opportunities given to them to succeed.  Dweck would say that a person with a growth mindset would take the opportunities allotted to them because they would not be afraid of failure.  Gladwell also proposed the 10,000 hour rule; the stars of the success stories had practiced 10,000 hours on whatever they were good at.  If a person practiced 10,000 hours on something, they probably did have a growth mindset to begin with.  A person with a fixed mindset would not be able to work that much on something that may give them errors or failure in return.  Dweck seems to believe that there are no naturals, so she too would say that people need to practice in order to succeed, like Michael Jordan did for example (Dweck, 2006; Gladwell, 2008).

     In conclusion, the books Mindset and Outliers were wrote by two different authors and probably for two different purposes, but they share an underlying premise, success.  Gladwell and Dweck both would say a person who wants success needs to have a growth mindset and practice at the field they hope to succeed in.  Gladwell and Dweck say this differently, but overall they both mean the same thing: take every opportunity given unto you, set your mind on your goal, and go for it.

---

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. New York City: Little, Brown and Company.

Success-itis

     “To be or not to be-that is the question” is a phrase that most of us would recognize as a line from Hamlet.  When Hamlet speaks this line, he is contemplating suicide.  ‘To be’ is another way of saying ‘to exist’.  To exist could mean literally to exist as in be alive, or it could mean to live in history as a great person.  One way to live in history is to be successful like Pat Riley.

     Although Pat Riley was a successful coach, he called success the “disease of me.” (Dweck, p.210, 2008) A disease is an infection that causes harm to a person, and lives in a person’s body until it is stopped or the person dies.  Like a disease, success causes side effects to a person, and success continues on until it is stopped or the person dies.  The side effects of success can be good or bad. The good side effects could be fame and fortune, or the bad side effects could be destruction upon the person’s household. 

     I think Pat Riley meant by his statement that he has had much success, and sometimes it has not always been for the best.  It is like the Disney movie Hercules.  Hercules wants to rejoin his parents on Mount Olympus, but first he must become a true hero before he can become a god again.  He obtains his godship by exchanging his life for Meg’s, the girl he is in love with.  However, if he rejoins his parents, he cannot be with Meg.  But if he stays with Meg on Earth, he cannot live an immortal life as a god.  The success of being a god had side effects.

     In response to Pat Riley’s comment Malcolm Gladwell, author of Outliers, would probably say something along the lines of, success is a good thing and even if it has some bad side effects, it will all work out in the end.  He would probably also say that the coach’s success had a lot to do with how much practice time he put in as a basketball player.  I would agree with Gladwell if he did say this.  Success can be good or bad, but usually it only comes through hard work.  If you work hard at something, you are bound to be successful.  This coach probably was no different.  He worked hard, and he was successful.

---

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books.

Naturally

     He goes for the slam dunk, the ball is rebounded, two seconds left, he tries again for another shot, buzzer goes off, and score!  Bulls win the game.  Michael Jordan makes the winning shot.  Some say he was a natural at basketball, but according to Carol Dweck’s book, “Michael Jordan wasn’t a natural.”  (Dweck, 2008, p.85)  If someone as talented as Michael Jordan was not a natural, what is a natural? 

     The website dictionary.com lists over 30 definitions of the word natural.  The one that fits Dweck’s use of the word is “any person or thing that is or is likely or certain to be very suitable to and successful in an endeavor without much training or difficulty.”  (LLC, 2011)  To a person who has not critically thought about natural ability, Michael Jordan would come to mind as a natural.  Dweck however had a second part to her quote: “He was the hardest-working athlete, perhaps in the history of sport.” (Dweck, 2008, p.85)  With this example and the many others she provides throughout chapter four of Mindset, she insinuates the idea that talents are not natural; they have to be worked with.

     I used to think I was a natural at two things, math and piano.  As a child I always seemed to have a knack for solving math problems.  Numbers made sense to me, and whenever math was taught to me, I would learn it quicker than most everyone else.  However, my parents worked with my math skills me when I was little.  They taught me how to play dominoes, which   consists of constant adding and subtracting.  According to my dad, I was playing with double fifteens at five years old, which is one of the hardest levels of dominoes.  I learned the math quickly, and I built on it from there.  Piano was similar.  Music seemed to come easy to me.  The concept of reading notes and making my hands move accordingly were not a challenge.

     I do not believe I am a natural at either math or piano.  The reason I always thought I was a natural at math and piano were because both were reinforced throughout my whole life.  In elementary, the only academic competition I participated in was Math Field Day.  All the students in my grade would take the same math test.  I won first place for five out of six years.  I was on the Math Field Day team, every year possible (including middle and high school).  In addition, I received many awards.  Nevertheless, if you look back at my report cards, I had good grades in all subjects.  If I applied myself to all of my classes, I could have easily achieved as much honors in my other classes as I did in math.  My talent in math is not “natural;” it was learned like the piano.

     When I was little, my dad paid for piano lessons and would tell me to practice.  When I got older and started to not practice as much, my skills started to slip.  I thought it was because I had too much going on at the time, but really, I was not practicing enough.  I do not have a natural ability of the piano; I had the practice and the support behind me to make the piano work.

     In summary, talents are not natural.  The only things natural are what the body does involuntarily, such as the beating of the heart.  Everyone has to learn how to walk, talk, and eat.  If a child’s parents or guardians’ focus on and try to prefect one attribute of their child, only then will talent appear.

---

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. New York City: Little, Brown and Company.

LLC. (2011). Natural. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

College Students and Tests

     In the book Mindset by Carol S. Dweck, the author describes two types of mindsets, fixed and growth.  People with a fixed mindset believe you need “to prove yourself over and over.”  People with a growth mindset believe “your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts.” (Dweck, 2008)

     On page 36 of Mindset, Dweck describes a scenario where “College students, after doing poorly on a test, were given a chance to look at tests of other students.  Those in the growth mindset looked at the test of people who had done far better than they had…But students in the fixed mindset chose to look at the tests of people who had done really poorly.” (Dweck, 2008)  The students with a growth mindset wanted their minds to grow with knowledge.  They gave their best effort, and they wanted to learn from their mistakes.  The fixed mindset students had an arrogant attitude toward the test.   They took the test, and only wanted to look at tests of other people who did worse than they did.  They did not want to learn from their mistakes.  In their mind, the thought “at least I did better than somebody else” was going through their head.

     I think all students should try to learn from their mistakes.  That is part of being a successful student.  No one is perfect; even geniuses make mistakes.  The growth mindset students wanted to improve on the next test, but the fixed mindset students wanted to put themselves on a pedestal.  The question I wonder now is if the person with the lowest test score had a fixed mindset, whose test did they look at?

---

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books.

What was Marita's Bargain?

     “In the mid-1990s, an experimental public school called the KIPP Academy opened… in New York City.”  (Gladwell, 2008) Children from low-class families were put into a lottery and signed up with the school if they were willing to put in the time and effort to become an accomplished scholar.  Marita was one of these students.  She signed up for this school and was accepted.  For school, she woke up at 5:45 am.  She started school at 7:25 am, and remained there until 5:00 pm.  She came home, worked on homework for most of the night, and went to bed around 10.  Throughout the summer, she went to school for three weeks.  With the help of the school, the children significantly improve their math scores by the time they leave the school.  Most children who at first do not seem like college bound students, become college bound students.  Eighty percent of the academy’s graduates go to college.  How do the children do it?

     The students make a bargain when they sign up for the school.  Marita did not know the full realm of how much she would have to sacrifice; she only wanted to make her mother happy.  She lost all of her old friends.  With the academy’s homework demands, she had no time for a social life.  She worked on schoolwork, and that’s pretty much all she did.  Sometimes she even skipped dinner just to finish homework.  The bargain she made was to give up all her free time and social life in exchange for a chance to improve and become an accomplished scholar.  Most of us would not think of doing such a thing, but most of us attended good schools. 

     Up to this point the bargain does not sound very appealing.  However, the bargain has some virtuous points too.  By making a bargain with KIPP, Marita will help improve her learning skills.  She will more than likely go to college, whereas before she may not have.  She gained new friends that were more on her level.  She will probably obtain a respectable career in the future.  She gained so much from making the bargain, but she lost so much too.

     When I started to read the chapter about Marita, I realized I was like her in so many ways.  I did not go to a “privileged” public high school, but I did take college prep courses.  Sometimes the homework was not the easiest, but I did what I had to.  Because I live in the country, I had to wake up around 5:30 to catch the bus at 6:30.  I would stay up working on homework sometimes until 11 o’clock.  I watched less and less television as high school progressed.  Sometimes I stayed home from visiting relatives, so I could catch up on my homework.  I never went out with my friends.  I lost three of them after I graduated. 

     On the plus side, my dedication to school compensated itself with a merit-based scholarship (that pays full tuition) as well as other scholarships and grants.  With my high grades, I also was able to apply for the honors college, which has benefits such as being grouped with academically motivated peers and early scheduling times.  In a way, by coming to college I made a bargain too.  My social life made not be the best right now, but my academic life is going along fine.

     In conclusion, Marita signed up with an advanced school called KIPP, so she could become an accomplished scholar.  She made a bargain, which was to give up almost everything in exchange for her to work on homework.  I hope someday this all works out for Marita, and she does not regret any of it.  I am hoping the same for me as well.  I am already starting to see some changes.  I am slowly gaining new friends, and my television hours have increased enough to watch my favorite shows.  Like Marita, I have been given a chance, and now all it will take for the both of us is hard work and dedication.  As the Chinese put it, “no one who can rise before dawn three hundred sixty days a year fails to make his family rich.” (Gladwell, 2008)

Comparison: Harlan, Kentucky and Glenwood, West Virginia

     In chapter six of Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell describes a little, scarcely populated Kentucky town called Harlan.  This town is located in a valley of the Appalachian Mountains.  When it was first settled, it was abundant with trees.  Some spots in the narrow valleys were only wide enough for a one lane road and a creek. The physical characteristics of Harlan are similar to my hometown Glenwood, West Virginia.  Trees are everywhere, and the trees are divided by a single lane road.  In some parts of Glenwood, there is a creek running alongside of the road.  Hills and ridges are abundant because Glenwood sits on the outskirts of the Appalachian Mountains.  Glenwood has quite a few people, but the homes are not side-by-side; they are spread out.  Glenwood and Harlan also have similarities of the people that make up the towns but only to a point.

     Harlan was the center for a family feud.  The Howard and Turner families were always at odds with one another.  Houses were raided, and people of both families were killed often.  These people were descendants from the Scots-Irish settlers, and Scots-Irish defend their honor.  Whenever a member from either family felt offended by the other family, they would get even.  In my hometown, there have been no family feuds.  However, I have seen and heard of fights among people in my area.  One family in particular likes to stir up trouble.  I have seen them try to fight their own cousins on the bus.  Someone runs their mouth to them, and before you know it, the fists start flying.

     In summary, Glenwood and Harlan have about the same scenery.  The people of both towns like to defend their honor.  However, Harlan handles their problems in a much more brutal way.

My Ideal Successful Student

     I used to think that being a successful student meant having straight A’s, being in the top of your class, and going to college. After assessing my family’s past history in the education system, I have changed my view.  Not everyone has the opportunity of going to college, not everyone can make straight A’s, and obviously not everyone can be in the top of their class.  There are students who do fulfill these conditions, and they are deemed as successful from their supporters, but what about the students who have limited mental capabilities and resources? Are they considered successful too, or are they viewed as failures?

     Success should not be defined as how much money a person has, or what type of position they hold, or how many children they were able to produce.  Success should be the state at which one person has accomplished all their goals and used their full potential in obtaining those goals.  So, applying this to a student, a successful student should be a student who has obtained the highest grades and achieved the most education possible within the limits of their mental capabilities, financial resources, and goals.

     The first two constraints are common sense.  A person with an IQ of 70 more than likely will not be able to attend college even if their parents are millionaires.  A person considered to be in poverty more than likely will not be able to go to college, unless they happen to be extremely smart and qualify for prestigious financial aid.  A person with straight A’s, superb ACT scores, and money at their disposal should not waste their time being lazy; they should go to college.  However, the third constraint may not let that happen.  Not everyone has a goal that involves a college education. A fourth situation may be that a student goes to college because they are smart, had the financial resources, and had the goal of a college education.  However, they made straight B’s because they did not do their homework or study long enough.  Although straight B’s are not bad grades, the student had the capability of making straight A’s.  So from my standpoint, that student was not successful.

     Success is like beauty; it’s in the eye of the beholder.  Everyone has their own opinions and definitions of success as well as a successful student.  My ideal successful student is one who has achieved the best grades and education possible within the boundaries of their mental capabilities, financial resources, and goals in life.  Only then can the student be labeled as a success.

Definition of an Outlier

      A white deer in a herd of brown deer, an African-American boy in a group of white children, a girl in an all-boy classroom, a Ferrari among thirty trucks, the straight 100’s student in a classroom of average students, Rudolph and the other reindeer…what do all of these situations have in common?  They all represent examples of outliers. 

     When the word "outlier" is brought up, this definition comes to mind: someone or something not included in a particular group.  According to the website thefreedictionary.com, an outlier is "one whose domicile lies at an appreciable distance from his or her place of business." In layman's terms, this means a person whose home is a great distance from his or her place of work. Two other definitions of outlier are also provided on the same website. One of them is "a value far from most others in a set of data."  The other definition is "a portion of stratified rock separated from a main formation by erosion."  The book Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell employs the second definition when he describes the town of Roseto, Pennsylvania.  The town is different from the mainstream set of data; the people of this town are healthier than the average American.

     Outliers can be outliers for good and bad reasons.  Adults and children with high IQs (on the upper end of the scale near 200) can be seen as outliers.  They learn school material within a matter a minutes that would take “smart” children an hour to comprehend.  To those who appreciate their talent, they are seen as a genius.  To those who do not appreciate their talent, they are seen as freak shows, too smart for their own good.  An African-American boy in a white crowd could go either way too.  By his skin color, he could be considered an outlier because he is unique.  But also by his skin color, he could be considered an outlier to be discriminated against.

     In summary, outliers in general are someone or something that does not fit the “norm.”  They can be seen as bad or good depending on the situation and perspective from which the situation is viewed.  Outliers give meaning to the word unique.