Eureka! I Found a New Species of Child!!

We live in a day and age where new and faster things are being invented everyday. Products are constantly being updated and upgraded. Now there are 101 ways to watch your favorite sport team or news channel. The education realm is also widely influenced by the advances of technology. Neil Postman brings some reality in on our virtual reality. Scientist say that the way of learning will be forever changed for the better by new and improved technologies. "If little Eva cannot sleep, she can learn algebra instead. At her home-learning station, she will tune in to a series of interesting problems that are presented in an interactive medium, much like video games," quotes Postman. He continues on by making fun of the idea that if a child can't sleep, she would much rather learn algebra. At first I was taken in by this argument. It does sound pretty ridiculous. But in today's discussion it dawned on me. Ding! What is fallible about this idea is not that the likelihood of a child in the middle of the night wanting an algebra lesson, it's the fact that it's true. But it's not true for those reasons. It's true because kids today are all about interactive media. Watching TV, playing video games, instant messaging, computer games, they are all very attractive to young minds. My sister would get in trouble for playing on the computer too long. But what games was she playing? Not the regular computer games, but the educational games. If a TV is on in a room, where are people's attention? It will be toward the TV. Our minds have been trained to intently focus on the technology. That argument that should be made is whether or not we want little Eva to be watching interactive Algebra videos at night. Has anyone heard of a warm glass of milk, some cookies, and a good book? Postman does come to this argument later on when he talks about how we need to teach our children not how to operate technology, but how technology is operating us.

So is technology a bad thing? No. Technology is very good, it makes things easier and faster. But we need a balance, especially in education. There needs to be a line where we are not consumed and completely dependent on technology. Technology is a tool, not the education itself. How do we learn? I always thought that we learned through our senses, the sense of touch, taste, sound, site, and smell. How do you smell and picture of a flower on a computer? How do you know what it feels like? Tastes like? Sounds like? Scientists would answer that they could have virtual reality flower. This makes me laugh because is it really reality? It's an altered reality, one where you can control what it looks like and what the components are that make it up. So in that sense, we are deceiving our kids in showing them a false reality. Why would it be so hard to go to a garden and pick a flower? It would certainly cost less. Heck.... it's FREE.

Necessity is the Mother of Invention.... Or is it?

Necessity is the mother of invention is a common phrase. I personally have heard all my life. But is that always the case? How do we find necessity? Do we invent things.... Just because? Neil Postman does not write directly toward this, but he does write about the god of consumership and the god of technology, which relate to these questions.

What is this god of consumership (g of C)? It is the idea that we, as someone in class defined it, make our identity with stuff. As Kalyn put it.... Whoever dies with the most toys wins. g of C creates a down cycle of buying more and more stuff because we claim that we "need" it.

But in our world today, this is true. We need more stuff. My dad has his own business and works from home. In order to keep up with the demand, he needs to increase the amount of equipment he has. Some of the jobs require more advanced technology. So in this sense, it really is a need.

How does this relate to kids? Day after day, they are bombarded with millions and millions of ads. Buy this, buy that... We are practically teaching our kids that they need more "stuff." School is just another avenue to buy more things for, like a new backpack, new outfits, new paper... Nothing lasts. In fact, that is the manufactures idea: make products that will suffice for the time being, but won't last, therefore giving the consumers a reason to buy more. Tricky huh? We have the technology to make light bulbs that don't burn out, jeans that last, nylons that don't run. But our culture is as such that we live by the fads. And the market companies milk that. People buy new "toys" just for the new features that they don't use. I have a cell phone. I know that there are features on there that I haven't explored on their yet simply because I haven't needed to. Or the case is that it has become a game: who can buy the most updated and cooler version of the toy first wins.

We need to teach our children to live the "simple life." That doesn't mean that they can't buy the new toys. But when that's all they live for, you've got a problem. When they miss out on life's little joys that are FREE, when they'd rather buy a new Super X 3000 toy and their old one is just as good, when they want to buy something just because it's new, folks, we better stop and check our values.

False "god" of Economic Utility

What is it? - Economic utility (g of EU)s the idea that if you go to school, you will guarantee yourself a good job. School is the training ground for your job.

Is this wrong? - g of EU is basing this assumption that going to school to get training for a job will endow you with success. How do you define success? In today’s standards success is most often times measured by your wealth. How much money you make, the amount of stuff you have, the wife/husband you married, etc. defines success. But honestly, some of the better jobs are the ones that are underpaid.
Take teachers for example, they are underpaid, but they have one of the most rewarding jobs out there. Although it is a faulty example since in today’s society we have teachers, thanks to the No Child Left Behind Act, who teach in order for kids to pass a test. Where is the joy of learning in that? In Dr. Ackiss’ advanced freshman writing class we just read Emerson’s essay On Education. Emerson encourages, what he calls, a child’s natural. Meaning a teacher should applaud learning that is outside the curriculum structure. “I advise teachers to cherish mother-wit. I assume that you will keep the grammar, reading, writing and arithmetic in order; ‘tis easy and of course you will. But smuggle in a little contraband wit, fancy, imagination thought,” he writes. Education should be progressive. Today we squelch creativity by not allowing imagination or fancy. Imagination is so important for children, as supported by Emerson. “I tell you the child just born yonder hovel is the beginning of a revolution as great as theirs,” he writes. Someone stated in the discussion the popular phrase “stop and smell the roses.” We shuffle kids right through the education system without teaching them to enjoy life, appreciate the small wonders.
Postman gave an example of this on page 30. He writes, “I did know a youngster once - he was in the second grade - who, upon being asked what he wanted to be when he grew up, answered without hesitation, ‘An orthodontist.’ It is hard to imagine a more depressing answer. It is unnatural for children to regard themselves as economic units except under extreme circumstances, and probably not even then. Nonetheless, since his parents had clearly put that idea in his head, I assume they would have approved.” Is it sad that a child so young has already narrowed down the direction of his future? Many in the discussion said they knew kids who pushed and pushed for achieving some high education status only to be burnt out. Isn’t that the goal of school and education? Pursue one course and conqueror it? I suppose that to find purpose in life, one must explore various avenues. Here is more evidence for supporting a well rounded education.

Ok, Let's Get Real

So this is going to be a blog where my punctuation and grammar doesn't really matter. Since starting this blog I have been a little intimidated with the quality of writers out there. But after reading some posts, I realized being down to earth and expressing my feeling like my normal writing style does, conveys what I want to say much better.

So, so... I keep starting out my paragraphs with so. Hmm... need to work on creative paragraph word starters. Suggestions? Whew... anyway!!! So today we talked a little bit about Caleb Gallimore's speech, since we didn't get to it last week. Not really much to say on that point except that we think it's cool that he has some high achievements and now has set the bar pretty high for the honors kids, but hearing his name over and over again is tedious and annoying.

Then, we discussed the first couple chapters, well, mostly the first chapter of the book The End of Education by Neil Postman. We are heavy discussers with loads of opinions. I will be amazed if we are able to discuss every chapter in this book over the next 5 or some weeks.

Honestly, I was not completely tracking with Postman. But I think that after the discussion today I have a better grip on what he is talking about. I was a good little honors student today and took lots of notes. :)

So (there we go again!) we talked about Postman's writing style, how he likes to use the format of giving the reader the "this" or "that" option. Which that is to some really annoying. We mostly discussed about the terms "god" and "God" and why he uses them instead of other words. Why does he choose to use these delicate terms so loosely? I think we all agreed that it was to convey importance. I also think that we he terms something as "the god of economics" or whatever... that he really pointing out to us something that we didn't think of as important, but we really are making it important. Hmm... let me rephrase that. He was trying to reveal to us that we are making "technology" a "god". He's revealing it to us because we are in denial that it has so much importance to us.

We also talked about the means and ends of educations. How we spend so much time on how to learn and what to learn, but not what the goal, the achievement, the pursuit is. He title makes more sense now. The End of Educations = The Goal of Education. What are we striving for? Why are we striving for it? Will it be worth it? These are questions that I have for Neil Postman. I have a strong feeling that he will answer them, and probably more.

My Graduation Speech

It seemed that this speech stirred up some aggravation among my fellow honor classmates. I guess they did not like to be put in the position of categorizing themselves an Athenian or Visigoth. In My Graduating Speech, Postman encourages students to not be a Visigoth, but to exemplify the character of an Athenian. He defines those two terms, Visigoth and Athenian, as one that destroys art and knowledge, and one that discovers and cherishes art and knowledge, respectively. Postman gives ample examples of how the Athenians sought after knowledge, cherished language, held on to traditions, was active in political matters, etc. Whereas the Visigoths were depicted as ruthless and brutal, destroying everything good.

The problem my classmates had was that these descriptions of the two peoples was not accurate. That, as Postman encourages, to be wholly Athenian was also to be a murder, greedy politician, conquerors, etc.

That also raised a point of whether to be the Athenian as Postman describes was beneficial to everyone. Because sometimes those that cherish the arts and knowledge do always use them for the good. Sometimes they are down right selfish about it. Which is more likely, someone who strives for knowledge to help the better of mankind and all its problems, or someone who strives for knowledge to help his own profit at whatever cost it may be?

What I gathered from reading the speech was that Postman was trying to encourage his audience/readers to continue to strive after knowledge, to preserve the arts. One of the reasons I didn't get distracted with his "either or" mentality was because I am not a very big history expert. I didn't know not to believe what he said about the the Athenians and Visigoths. I suppose that means a slight failure on my part as an Honors student who is supposed to question everything she reads and find out through research the truth. Well, my excuse is that I am a young Honors student, whose brain is opened to knowledge.