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