Does Single Gender Schools have an affect on Education?

Writer: Denovia

I think single gender schools have a positive effect on students of all ages. Single gender schools have been researched for many years and studies have shown that countless girls thrive in a single sex school. And with a strict teacher and a friendly environment single-sex education in boys can also be beneficial.

Initially UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies did a national study that confirmed girls from single sex schools have an edge over their coed peers. The classes were favorable to students because they aided in the encouragement of academic authority by removing distractions, destroying thoughts of being inadequate to the other sex, and reducing the feeling of being left behind. Girls dropped their shyness and started to take risks in a single sex setting, and become more competitive with less social pressure. They also embarked on taking on sports like field hockey and soccer with pleasure, without worrying about appearing like tom boys.

Many studies show that boys tend to lag behind girls in academic achievement as well as social well being because boys mature later than girls. Plus in a single sex setting boys tend to soften their competitive edge and become more collaborative. Likewise within this single gender setting they learn what they are being taught because they are comfortable amongst themselves. So boys can just be boys and not worry about what the girls might think. In a class full of same sex friends’ boys would be less frightened of giving the wrong answer in class and more willing to participate.

Studies also show that children grow at their own pace and single-sex classrooms are thought to be a good thing for boys and girls. The way the schools are configured it creates a more comfortable environment in which they are more open to learning.

http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Single_Sex_Education_The_New/

http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=5638
http://www.ehow.com/info_8652673_singlegender-classrooms.html

Writer: Denisea

           I believe that same-sex schooling is not the way to go. Not only does it have a negative affect on education, it is gender segregation and it tells our children that they are so different from each other that they need to be separated in order to learn. This kind of mindset will carry on from their childhood straight into their adulthood and affect their ability to work with on another, because they are that different. Being in the same learning environment shows them that not only are they different but it teaches them to learn how to work with someone that understands differently than they do, in order to reach the same ultimate goal - getting an education.

           Dr. Leonard Sax M.D., Ph.D., founder of the National Association for single sex public Education and author of “Why Gender Matters” and “Boys Adrift,” argues “If you don’t understand gender differences, you end up furthering gender stereotypes.” Well, that is where teachers come in. According to Jim Rex and David Chadwell, the superintendent of Education in South Carolina and the coordinator of single-gender program for the South Carolina Department of education respectively, one of the top three things that need to be done in order to ensure that single-gender schooling prevails would be for the teachers to be trained on “how to better understand how gender can influence learning.” Just as teachers are taught how to teach to the children that learn more effectively through the visual and hands-on approach within the same gender, they also need to taught the difference between male and female learning patterns and how to reach them most successfully.

Sax also states due to the differing sexes, children have different needs in the classroom that are not being meat thoroughly in a co-ed classroom setting, such as the need to get up and move from boys and the effectiveness that making connections and discussing as a group have on girls. Therefore, wanting to cater to the children’s different learning styles is understandable. However, if they are not put into the same learning environment, how can they be expected to learn from each other?  That is what schooling is all about, no matter if it is public or private, It gives the child the experience of learning from one another. Learning from and working with one another while their young results in positive outcomes when they get older and into the working world. Real life is not sex segregated therefore the most vital educational and developmental years should not be either. 

http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Single_Sex_Education_The_New/

http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=5638

http://www.ehow.com/info_8652673_singlegender-classrooms.html

Frankie and Alice: The Review

Frankie and Alice is a Canadian drama film, directed by Geoffrey Sax, and loosely based on a true story.  This film was originally released in in the United States for a limited run in December 2010; the film was re-released on April 4, 2014. Halle Berry plays the lead role of Frankie. Frankie is a black woman with dissociative identity disorder, caused by a traumatic incident from her childhood, which she has repressed. She has two alters: Genius, a seven-year-old child with an IQ of 156 and Alice, a Southern white racist woman, whom Frankie struggles to overcome.

In the opening frames of this story, we learn that Frankie earns her living as a go-go dancer. After her performance at the night club, Frankie decides to leave with a gentleman that works with her at the club. Once the two reach his apartment, Frankie has her first black out. In fear for her life, she adversely injures the man. Consequently, she is arrested and is also fired from her job.  In order to have the charges dropped, she is diagnosed with dissociative identity order and placed under the care of Dr. Oz, a psychiatrist, who seeks to find the source of her disorder.

During the course of this narrative, Frankie has frequent black outs and bursts of odd behavior, which are associated to these two alternate personalities of Genius and Alice. While Halle Berry does an exceptional job of bring life to these characters, the storyline of the film is ultimately a wash. Geoffrey Sax fails to bring the drama to the overall premise.

Frozen

Frozen is a Disney movie that came out in December of 2013. Directed by Chris Beck and Jennifer Lee, create a tale that not only centers around one character, but multiple characters, something that is out of the box for Disney. The story begins with men cutting ice and singing a song titled "Frozen Heart," an apt foreshadowing of the rest of the movie. We then see the two main characters, Elsa and Anna, as children, and we also see that Elsa has the power to create snow and ice. Elsa accidentally hits Anna in the head with her powers, Anna passes out, and this begins the decline of the characters in the story. Elsa is shut in her room, Anna basically loses her sister, and the parents of the two try to comfort both while keeping them safe. 

I enjoyed this movie because it has equal amounts of the traditional mixed with the contemporary. Anna supposedly meets the love of her life in one night and wishes to marry him, but Elsa does not give her consent. This is a contemporary notion for Disney because their princesses usually find Mr. Right within a few hours, and the movie ends with a beautiful wedding scene and 'happily ever after.' In contrast, there isn't one wedding scene in Frozen. In fact, the love story of Anna and Kristoff is more of a sub-plot in the film than a main plot. The writers instead focus more on the nuances of familial relationships, most notably between Anna and Elsa. They develop this relationship from the beginning, and they give it a satisfying ending by Anna saving Elsa, who, for all intents and purposes, was the main villain of the story. Another contemporary idea they put into the film is the reality of multiple villains instead of just one. Elsa was a villain, although she turned out to be a savior of sorts, but there was also Hans and the Duke of Weselton with his dark-browed thugs. This movie shows that you don't only have to worry about one person being evil, but that all people are capable of having evil in themselves, which is a thought based in reality and not fairy tales.

Of course, the movie wouldn't be a Disney movie if it didn't have comedic relief. While all the characters have funny scenes, the actual comedy comes from a character named Olaf, a snowman that does not realize snow and heat do not mix. Olaf also offers a connection between Elsa and Anna, not only in their past, but also in their present and future. Olaf distinguishes Elsa as a good character because he shows that Elsa can create good from her powers, even when she drowns Arendelle in ten feet of snow. Disney offers the love story that the audience always craves, between Kristoff and Anna. They also offer the animals with human personalities. Anna proves herself to be a true Disney Princess, but Elsa does as well, and a more realistic one at that, because she has the power to be good and evil, whereas Anna stays good throughout.

 Overall, the movie hits all the right notes and becomes an instant hit. It is heartwarming and can be enjoyed by the whole family, not just the children.The movie has stunning images and quality, and the songs are beautifully written and beautifully sung by the characters voice-overs: Idina Menzel, Kristen Bell, and Jonathan Groff to name a few. The songs were amazing. "In Summer," sung by Josh Gad as Olaf, is my personal favorite. This film comes highly recommended, and, as it's made over 1 billion dollars, I'm sure many would agree. 

                                                               --Skyler

Teenage Consumers

Writer Denovia

    When it comes to saving or spending, many teens are unaware that money requires a great deal of responsibility. Based on reports done by  Marketingvox, Rand Youth Poll, Seventeen published Statistic Brain in September 2012, teens spend up to $208.7 billion on products such as shoes, clothes, and cell phones.
                                                               
80% of girls identified shopping as one of their "hobbies and activities".  

    This does not include the $117.6 billion parents spend on food, apparel, personal items, and entertainment. Major companies are aware of this.  Also many teens living with their parents have no major responsibilities, so they are not as conscious about their spending, making them more susceptible to over spending and consumer fraud.  Teenagers are also easily influenced by friends, fashion, ads, and celebrities all of which change with the latest trend.  This makes teens the priority target for big business advertisement because they are now considered major consumers.

    For these reasons I don’t think teenagers are not responsible consumers.  I believe parents should continuously educate their teenagers about consumer spending for long term development.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/teenage-consumer-spending-statistics/


Response Writer:
Denisea Patton

Teenagers are a lot more responsible when it comes to their spending choices than many people would like to believe. Unlike many of their elders, teenagers will recognize something they like, work in order to afford it and save up until they are able to purchase it outright.

According to the article, “Teens Spend Big, but Don't Always Spend Smart,“ published by the personal Finance department of the National Consumers League, “nine out of ten [American teenagers] save money.” The reasons behind the savings differ between college and specific items they desire. But regardless of the reasoning, they understand and abide by the need of actual cash earnings oppose to finding options like layaway plans. They are smart consumers because they will pass on many frivolous options just to get the best one that will last longer because of the quality.

American adults are so keen to having things right here and now that they will sacrifice quality, their savings account balance and their credit limit to have it immediately. Teens, by default due to their inability to obtain a credit card, are more conscious on their spending habits.  How can we blame them for not spending their money on food, electricity, house payments, etc? That’s going to be taken care of regardless. Due to the teenager age group, their parents purchase a lot of the necessities needed to survive. Teenager’s priorities are different than ours that have real bills, but that doesn’t mean that they are not responsible when dealing with the purchases they do choose to make.
http://www.nclnet.org/personal-finance/66-teens-and-money/119-teens-spend-big-but-dont-always-spend-smart

To be Paid, or to be Unpaid?

Writer (Skyler): Internships offer a valuable learning experience for anyone who is able to snare one. However, most internships require hours that are that of a normal job, Monday-Friday, 9-5. While this schedule shows how rigorous and demanding a regular job can be, this leaves no time for someone with an unpaid internship to work at all to make some sort of money to support themselves during said internship. This is where the problem arises. It is unethical and a little farfetched to expect a student or anyone to work that amount of hours with no money to pay bills, put gas in their car, or even eat. I understand the sentiment behind the unpaid internship; it is a learning experience, yada yada yada. But Kamenetz in “Take This Internship and Shove It” writes it best when she says “getting hired and getting paid are what work, in the real world, is all about.” 

Let’s face it; money has always been an incentive, and it will continue to be so years from now. If anything, being in a paid internship will make the students work harder, because they know the money they earn is from their own hard work and goes toward their continual survival in a world where expenses add up. Also, the students who take out loans to live comfortably while working an unpaid internship are setting up bad habits. Unpaid internships are giving them the impression that, if they get a low paying job, they will have some form of monetary back-up plan that they can fall back on, when this is often not the case. Unpaid internships are based on the illusion that students can better prepare themselves for a real job, but the only way to do this is to treat an internship like it is a real job. If anything, unpaid internships let companies get work for free. The National Association of Colleges and Employers reported for the class of 2013 that “63.1 percent of paid interns received at least one job offer. In comparison, only 37 percent of unpaid interns got an offer.” Also, paid interns made more in starting salaries than those who had unpaid internships. The logic is simple; paid internships offer more opportunities than unpaid internships.

Works Cited

"Class of 2013: Paid Interns Outpace Unpaid Peers in Job Offers, Salaries." Class of 2013: Paid Interns Outpace Unpaid Peers in Job Offers, Salaries. N.p., 29 May 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.


Are Unpaid Internships Worth It?

Response Writer: Timothy Carter

In order to secure employment within a reputable organization, Work experience or internships are established pre-requisites. However, some of these internships are unpaid, particularly in the industries of fashion and media. For students, is an unpaid internship a valuable opportunity? Or, is it a waste of the student’s summer and time that could be better used generating some much needed income to support him/her? The benefits of an unpaid internship are invaluable. Working any internship offers students real-world experience, evidence of their future job-worthiness, and contacts in their field of interest.

 

Students may find that sometimes the internship that is most in line with their career goals is unpaid. Surprisingly, there are many benefits to working an unpaid internship:

1.       Unpaid internships offer more flexibility. This allows students to formulate their own learning goals that align with their career objectives.

2.       Unpaid internships can be more convenient to a student’s class schedule or offer a shorter commute. 

3.       Unpaid internships offer the same kinds of networking and learning opportunities as paid internships. 

4.       They also give students the opportunity to prove their dedication and enthusiasm for their internship, which makes a positive impression on employers.  

 

 

What is good or bad about classifying people?

                                                       Writer: Denovia
I think the system in which people utilize to determine an individual’s race, ethnicity, and color national origin is not an issue, but the individuals themselves may be the issue instead. Therefore by eliminating classification, society appears to turn a blind eye to unfair treatment of certain individuals. Society as a whole should first recognize and then accept our differences. Until we accept these differences, we pretend to be color blind.

For many individuals, particularly minorities, it’s very vital due to past racial oppressions such as discrimination, racial profiling, and equality in education, sentencing, and employment. There is a saying, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it”, (Edmund Burke). For this reason, some minorities’ classification of race, color, ethnicity, or national origin is tied to their history. Removing the classification system would not only be malignant, but detrimental to individuals depending on the color of their skin. Society needs to realize that recognizing differences is not a problem, but how we react or deal with differences can create the problem.

Stand Your Ground

Within the past two years, the national news has made the general public aware of cases that were defended using Florida’s Justifiable Use of Force law - 776.013, commonly referred to as Stand-Your-Ground (SYG). Many are familiar with the case of George Zimmerman who fatally shot the 17-year old Trayvon Martin in his father’s living community after returning home from a run to the convenience store. George Zimmerman, the accused, followed the man even after the 911 operators instructed him not to. He confronted Martin, participated in a physical altercation with the young man, before ultimately killing him. He was acquitted of all charges on the basis that he felt threatened and, by defending himself, felt fatal force was necessary.

A similar case tried months later was that of Michael Dunn. After four young men refused to turn down their car radio, Dunn took it upon himself to shoot and kill 17-year old Jordan Davis. He then got out of his car and continued to shoot into the young men’s retreating car. Dunn claimed he felt threatened because Jordan pointed a shotgun at him. That shotgun’s existence was denied by the three survivors and was never found by police officers. Dunn was charged with three counts of attempted murder in the account of the three surviving young men and will serve 60 years in prison. Unlike Zimmerman, Dunn is not completely in the clear as it relates to the murder of Davis, as the jury was unable to agree on a ruling, resulting in a mistrial called by the Judge hearing the case.

A person is protected under SYG if they “held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm.”  Who defines reasonable? Reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another. Life experiences contribute to the opinion and point of view of a person. Such language as “reasonable” can make it extremely difficult for one juror to agree with the others, as they don’t share the same experiences. It is a word that is not clearly defined and thus leaves it completely up to interpretation. 

Because of such clarity the SYG law creates an avenue for individuals to confront or antagonize another individual and, after the person on the receiving end defends themselves, that first person’s life is now in danger and their brutality, whether fatal or not, is “justified.”

The law was made for a reason; it serves a good purpose when it comes to such cases of self-defense. It brings me comfort to know that as a woman I can defend myself by any means if I am being attacked, but it also makes me nervous for those people that feel that they can take advantage of such a law and get away with it.  I understand the need for such a law, however I even more so understand the need for that law to be revised so that individuals would not be able to use it as a crutch of a sort of Get out of Jail Free card.
(Denisea)

RESPONSE

I agree with the wording of the SYG law being subjective. The lack of clarity to what is considered “reasonable” is what seems to give this law free passes to those who may just have ill intent. I completely agree with the argument stated above. The SYG law needs to be evaluated and revised.

Although the cases mentioned are completely different scenarios, the justification for both crimes rested on the SYG law. Naturally people are going to have their opinions about the cases outcomes. Some may feel that in both cases justice was served, while others may feel that the verdicts of the cases did not fit the crime committed. The outcomes of these cases are going to always be based on which lawyer does a better job with defining the arbitrary terms that create the freedom given to the public to exercise their rights as related to this law. (Candace)

Faux Friendship "Facebook"

                                          Writer (Skyler)

 I agree with "Faux Friendship" by William Deresiewicz overall, in that Facebook has changed the nature of friendship. However, I disagree with Deresiewicz that this change is a completely negative one. In today's world of technology, the invention of Facebook has given all people a way to connect and to stay in touch. Deresiewicz seems to assume that Facebook taken Satan's place and destroyed friendship. However, Facebook was never meant to be a substitution for actual, tangible, friendship. Of course, everyone's views of Facebook are different. I never log into the website with the intention of saying hey to friends or what not. I go on there for humor mostly, but also for vague, superficial updates on friends. If I really wanted to talk with friends and family and see how they are, I would call, or send a text to meet up and have lunch or something. Facebook is not the monster that Deresiewicz believes it to be if one takes it at face value (pun intended). 

Friendship will remain sacred no matter what social networking sites come forth in the next few years, even in the next century. Also, saying that you have to have a limited amount of friends to be very close to them is a little preposterous. You do not have to see friends every day to feel secure in the relationship. When something amazing happens to a person, just as I'm sure it did to Solomon (he became king and all), the first instinct is to call your friend and share the news, and this will not change.  Just because friendship is displayed differently than it was centuries earlier, with Solomon and Jonathan, does not mean that the friendship is any less of a friendship, any less of a bond, any less of a sacred connection. And just because you may know more people, such as the 728 friends on Facebook you probably have not shared any in-depth discussions with, does not mean that you take those people for actual friends. They are memories, and people do not want to let memories go. So they have Facebook for memories, and phones for the friends that they actually care about.

                         Response Writer (Denovia)

"Faux Friendship" by William Deresiewicz was a very interesting excerpt and I fully agree with Deresiewicz about Facebook changing the nature of friendship. While reading the text I decided to check the definitions of faux and friendship.  Faux per Webster means not genuine or real, being an imitation of the original, fake, or false.  Friendship is the state of being friends; friendly relation, or attachment, to a person, or between persons; affection arising from mutual esteem and good will; friendliness; amity; good will.  Deresiewicz described how ancient friendship has evolved over the years "No longer being rare, precious and hard won". 

 When I think about "Facebook Friends" the words used by Deresiewicz, “rare, precious and hard won” do not come to mind. But if I use the term faux (imitation of the original) in conjunction with "Facebook Friends" based on the definitions Deresiewicz argument seems accurate.  Yes Facebook allows us to connect with friends, but this connection is only limited to Facebook, because more than likely most of them would not be invited to diner at our home.  The link below is a youtube video of Greg Benson visiting a few Facebook friends.  The problem is they don’t really know one another they are just Facebook friends.  How would you react if a Facebook friend you hardly knew showed up at your door?

I think Deresiewicz's make a clear point Facebook friendship is a  “Faux Friendship”.  Yes Facebook is much better than having a pen pal, but having hundreds of friends doesn’t allow a person to form a true bond with each individual.  Yet not all Facebook friendships are fake, however if a person has 728 friends more than likely the majority falls into the faux category.
http://youtu.be/LO-1VaR3PPo?t=2m48s