Literal vs. Philosophical: FIGHT!

Admitting I'm an atheist has seriously damaged my research, but not my enjoyment of cheesy martial arts fantasy films. Go figure.

Allow me to 'splain. Or at least sum up.

I'm deep into research on the soul for the upcoming short story my Wise Readers have valiantly volunteered to vet. That research involves digging into the idea of the tulku, which seemed like a good philosophical idea to riff on. So I'm reading a book on Tibetan Buddhism.

It's not a great book on Tibetan Buddhism. In fact, it's shallow and silly. It focuses more on what you might call popular practice than the ideas. I know Buddhism, even the more religious kinds replete with gods and other such things the Buddha would've had no truck with, has some excellent philosophical depth. But this book wants to focus more on things like folks staking bits of the land down so they won't run away.

So here I am, reading this, and instead of thinking, "Interesting - that could be useful for an alien culture, suitably camouflaged," I'm thinking, "Do people really believe that silly shite? I mean, on a scale of everyday concerns, is this really important to them?"

I'm gonna have to stay away from the popular stuff for a while. Avoid people running around driving stakes through bits of ground so it doesn't get filched by demons in favor of the stuff that treats such matters as allegory and philosophy rather than as matter of fact. Gah.

I must be an Elitist Bastard. Even with religion research, I prefer the hoity-toity, scholarly, metaphorical, very complicated theological systems advanced by deep thinkers than the stuff practiced by the simple folk. That's not new, mind, just more pronounced.

And yet I can go to a movie like The Forbidden Kingdom and have absolutely no problem at all with Monkey gods and a lot of extreme silliness. Bronx geek with an unhealthy fascination for martial arts films ends up transported to another kingdom, has to return the Monkey King's staff? Not a problem! Runs into a Taoist immortal who's perpetually drunk? Better still! Nothing makes logical sense? Who cares! It's beautiful and it's fun and it works in the context of the story, even when it's cheesier than a truckload of Cheez Whiz.

I thoroughly enjoyed picking up on bits and pieces of myth, legend and philosophy. There's a lot more Zen in there than you typically run in to in Chinese flicks - a great moment where Jackie Chan's drunken Taoist character, Lu Yan, is teaching Jason kung fu, and pours him a cup of tea as Jason's going on and on about all the martial arts moves he knows from the movies. I knew what would happen: Lu would keep pouring.

It's an old Zen story. A man comes to the Zen master for teaching, bragging about all the things he already knows about Zen. The Zen master nods and smiles and pours tea - and keeps pouring, until the cup overflows and runs all over the floor. "Stop!" the visitor protests. "The cup's already full!" "Exactly," the master says. "How can I teach you anything when your cup's already full? Empty your cup!"

This is exactly what happens in the movie, and it's a sheer delight.

Lu Yan's based on Liu Ling, I'll bet you a dollar to a donut hole. Don't know Liu Ling? Hang about me for any length of time and you soon will. He was one of the legendary Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove. One story about him says that he was followed around by a manservant who carried a jug of wine and a shovel. The wine was in case he sobered up too much. The shovel was in case he drank himself to death.

Now, that's a man comfortable with his life!

Seeing as how Wikipedia already butchered my favorite story of Liu Ling, I shall retell it here:

One day, a Confucian friend of Liu's went to his house and found him nude. Confucians, of course, put a lot of store by propriety, so the friend was a little discombobulated by this unashamed nakedness. They're sitting there chatting, and the Confucian friend is getting more and more disturbed, until finally he can take no more. "Why aren't you wearing any trousers?" he splutters.

"The universe is my house. This room is my trousers," Liu says to him. "What are you doing here inside my trousers?"

I think you can begin to see why I love Taoist philosophy so very much.

And I think that may be what's missing from that book on Tibetan Buddhism: the playfulness. The spontaneity. The delight in the absurd, the deeper meaning behind the seemingly meaningless. It's one thing to go around staking down plots of earth in all seriousness. It's quite another if it's treated as something of an in-joke. The simple folk may seriously believe those stories about the land flying away if you don't nail it down, they may believe in the objective reality of the demons and the gods, but that's just a surface meaning. It's not, when you get right down to it, what it's really all about.

And I'm not even sure those Tibetan peasants are so literal. I have to wonder if that's just the artifact of a Western mind trying to comprehend the Eastern. After all, Western religion got right out of the joyful absurdity business and took things way too literally for far too long. I find that strange, when you look at the New Testament and see how often Jesus taught in parables. If you ever wonder why I tend to giggle when fundies proclaim every word of the Bible is literal truth, there it is: Jesus himself said otherwise. So if you're using the Bible to prove the Bible... watch out.

After a long and winding journey, we have finally looped around to the point: I can enjoy The Forbidden Kingdom without the slightest hint of annoyance because I know that while there's serious stuff in there, it's not meant to be taken seriously. No one is claiming these things happened in actual reality. These are true stories, but in an allegorical, not empirical, sense. This movie is sheer entertainment with a little bit o' good philosophy mixed in. And there's no silly Western bugger going, "Wow, people actually believe the story of the Monkey King, and we have to treat it as The Truth, 'cos it's their religion."

Unlike this bloody book.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go track down some bugger who knows what the tulku are really all about so I can tell a ripping good story meself.

*Bonus points to anyone who caught the Mortal Kombat reference in the title.

A Re-Introduction

Well, it seems that I'm not such an incompetent blogger as I thought! It seems that one of our host's friends, George, took notice of my "Candidates and Classrooms" post - it was mentioned over at Decrepit Old Fool. I am flattered for the mention, and my thanks go out to the author!

One minor point, though...

I am very much male.

*checks trousers*

Yep. Definitely.

A simple mistake, especially given that I popped up out of the blue without any real introduction or description of myself. So here's a quick moment for me to hog the spotlight and tell you what kind of human I am!

As mentioned, I am a guy. An 18 year old guy, about 6'2 with hazel eyes and brown air. My heritage is an eclectic mix of various European countries, nothing particularly strong enough to influence me more than the others. English is, allegedly, among the stronger of my ancestors - though my father was adopted, so this information is questionable. I have Native American on my maternal grandfather's side, and Dutch Irish on my grandmother's. I live in the beautiful pacific northwest, and I spend most of my time writing, reading, exploring the bright centers of the internet, and video gaming. I write for myself, in the form of a science fiction novel, and for others, as is the case with my game design projects, in which I work under an independent designer working on his debut project. I might decide to actually use my own Blogger blog (Musings Of A Teenage Mind) to discuss those projects. The blog is, currently, empty as I have found no good use for it, and my time has been spent here. I suppose if there was enough interest in it, I'd share my stuff there.

In any case, that's most of the vital stats. Thank you for allowing me to talk about myself, it's not something I'm in the habit of doing. So now, please go on to enjoy the better parts of the blog! I have posted the second part of my education-based blog series below, be sure to stop by if you are interested.


And everything changes
And nothing is truly lost
-Neil Gaiman

Academic Showdown: AP vs IB

Thank you for your comments on my last entry, "Candidates and Classrooms", and reading one of them mentioned the value of the AP classes. So here's my spiel:

AP, or Advanced Placement, is indeed a very beneficial path to take during your high school career. I might have considered taking a few of the tests, given that I am in AP Biology and AP Calculus. I was already accepted into my school of choice, and few of the AP credits were applicable, so I opted out. However, this is not to say that the average student should turn down the AP classes and tests. In fact, I would readily encourage it, if you are planning on attending an academic college. There is no denying the benefit of not having to take a college course.

However, I believe that the presence of AP tests has its downsides, too. For one, it only encourages and reinforces the "teach the test" [see Candidates and Classrooms] method of education. For another, some schools are trying to actually award a higher grade point for AP classes; essentially meaning that 4.0 is not the highest potential GPA you could get, but rather you could get higher than that if you attend the right schools. I cannot say if it was actually put into action or merely proposed, but it certainly was, at least, discussed.

It also seems that the AP curriculum and the way our education system functions are at odds with one another. At some schools, the classroom time or facilities are insufficient to provide students with the full scope of the AP coursework. Overall, the AP classes feel very rushed, very hurried, with little emphasis on how anything is useful to you other than saving money - it's all about passing the tests. There is a lot of stress involved, heavy course load, but somehow we make it through.

Basically, AP is a money-saver, but I doubt if we'll remember any of it in a year.

So what about this IB thing? First, does anyone know anything about it?

The International Baccalaureate Organization, or IBO, or just IB, is an internationally standardized diploma program currently in place in approximately 125 countries around the world, in over 2,000 schools. There are 6 areas of study: Foreign Language (Spanish, French, German or Japanese, student choice), Science (Chemistry or Biology), Mathematics, Economics, History, and Literature. There are also two "levels" of study: Higher Level and Standard Level. The primary difference between the two is that HL tests are a measurement of two years of learning, with SL only one. Basically, HL encompasses information from both Junior and Senior year of study, with SL primarily on the Senior year classwork. With the exception of the Foreign Language, each area is comprised of 2 test sessions, ranging from one to three hours in length. This means that we take 11 test sessions total for Full IB Diploma.

A student can, optionally, take Certificate tests. These are just the test sessions in however many areas the student chooses to take. Undergoing the full IB program also throws on 50 hours of community service (on top of 100 hours we have to do anyway).

Get all that? There will be a test at the end of the post, so take notes.

The IB tests are less widely recognized than the AP test. In some classes, say Oregon State University, full IB Diploma "Scholars" are given $2,000 scholarship, and guaranteed admission, as a sophomore. Other schools, such as the Art Institute of Portland (my destination) threw a handful of confetti into the air and said, "Congrats", and that's about as far as the benefits took me. They also cost an arm and a leg to take, each area over $100 a pop. So the benefit of the tests are fewer.

Unless!

If you plan on studying aboard, than the IB tests can be a big boon. See, every student in every school in every country that participates in this program learns the same curriculum and takes the same tests on the same day - possibly even at the same time. So going abroad means that it actually is important. However, not many of us are going to go to Europe for college, as much as we might like to.

Having said that, what I like about the IB program is the actual curriculum. The classes are more in-depth, and are taught in a very unique style. It's fun, interesting, and we find ways to apply what we know to the other areas of our life. I might do a more detailed exploration of IHS (International High School) and the IB program later, so I won't go into it deeply.

Basically, though, the IB tests have less financial/academic value than the AP tests, because they are less likely to be recognized and to allow you to waive classes, however I find that the curriculum has a much better pace. Also, while all the information you learn in IB classes are useful for the test, the test themselves have such a wide range of questions, covering the entire range of possible things you could learn in the classes, that it is slightly less "teach the test" in style. The format of papers, perhaps, is very strictly taught as IB-criteria. However, take History. A teacher might go more in-depth into, say, the Russian Revolution and Nazi Germany during their study on Single Party States, rather than Mao in China. However, the IB test will allow you to select, for instance, three questions to answer, in essay form, from a list of fifteen to twenty questions, that range from Mao, to Castro, to Stalin. So instead of the classes teaching you what will be on the exam, the exams are meant to test you on something you will be taught.

Thus are the choices we make. Neither one is easy - but both are rewarding in their own ways.


And everything changes
And nothing is truly lost
-Neil Gaiman

Carnival Business #4

My darlings, we are almost ready to take the world by storm! Just a few things left to do:

Etha Williams needs Elitist Bastard quotes for a random quote generator she's putting together. If you have a quote that oozes elitist bastardry, be sure to drop it by.

The title bar is still sadly lacking graphic interest. Should anyone feel like playing with Photoshop over the weekend, an actual design would not go amiss.

If you're participating, don't forget to grab yourself a badge and bung it up on your sidebar by Friday. That goes for me as well.

Most importantly, don't forget to get your submissions in to elitistbastardscarnival@gmail.com. Ye olde deadline is end of day Friday, May 31st.

Anything to add? We're into the "What vitally important thing have I forgotten?" stage here.

Eggheads, Unite!

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

News from my home state always gets my attention, especially when it shows Arizona's starting to lean blue:

In 2004, Bush won Arizona by double digits. This year, with Arizonan John McCain leading the Republican ticket, it stands to reason there’d be quite a bit of excitement among the state’s GOP elite.

And yet, the enthusiasm is surprisingly underwhelming. (via Eric Kleefeld)

A Tuesday fundraiser headlined by President Bush for U.S. Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign is being moved out of the Phoenix Convention Center.

Sources familiar with the situation said the Bush-McCain event was not selling enough tickets to fill the Convention Center space, and that there were concerns about more anti-war protesters showing up outside the venue than attending the
fundraiser inside.

Another source said there were concerns about the media covering the event.

Bush’s Arizona fundraising effort for McCain is being moved to private residences in the Phoenix area.

Ah, Arizona! Finally been tipped beyond the point of tolerance, haven't ye? Warms the cockles of my heart, that does. McCain's popular there, and the conservative streak runs deep, but there's only so much the good folks of Arizona are willing to take before they decide that if the state's survived so long with a Democrat at the helm, maybe a Democrat in the Oval Office isn't such a bad idea after all.

My absolute favorite part is that Bush & Co. is being forced to run and hide from that horrible, nasty (conservative) Arizona media and the scary (possibly conservative) war protesters. You know they're in bad shape when they have to go to ground not in a smaller venue, but in private houses.

Serves the fuckers right.

(Psst - Obama's gaining on you. Ooga-booga! HA HA HA HA HA!)

Might be it has something to do with McCain's flopping like a fish on immigration:

This doesn’t make a lick of sense. On Thursday, McCain was talking to a group of business leaders who liked McCain’s original approach to comprehensive legislation, and the senator sought input on how best to rally support for his own bill (which he now says he’d vote against). On Friday, McCain told opponents of his immigration bill that he didn’t mean any of what he’d just said.

This is more than just a shameless flip-flop; it’s quickly becoming a character flaw. He’ll shovel whichever nonsense he has to say to please which ever audience happens to be in front of him at the time.

For those keeping score at home, McCain does not support "comprehensive immigration reform.”

Yes, he does.

No, he doesn’t.

Yes, he does.

No, he doesn’t.

Yes, he does.

No, he doesn’t.

Nearly all of these, by the way, come from the last six months.

Two things. First, immigration is a hot-button issue in Arizona - extremely hot. We have white folk up in arms over brown folk streaming over the border, and we have brown folk marching through the streets of Phoenix demanding some respect and solutions, and, well, it gets tense. But I don't even think that's the most important thing. Arizonans could tolerate a postition on immigration they don't like as long as some reasonable solution's being worked toward, but they absolutely cannot stand a man who can't make up his mind. They'll look at the list of McCain flip-flops over the course of the last six months, and they'll see an indecisive old fart who lies like a rug and can't be trusted with the key to the outhouse, much less the White House, and, well. They'll decide accordingly.

I didn't think the day could get any more delightful, but Sen. Joe Biden's in full cry again, and my darlings, it is music:

Today, Sen. Joe Biden (D-RI) appeared on various morning talk shows and sharply criticized the notion that progressives are weak on national security. On MSNBC he responded to Lieberman, stating, “[C]an you imagine Franklin Roosevelt, can you imagine President Truman, can you imagine President Kennedy conducting the kind of policy this outfit has?” From the exchange:

This administration is the worst administration in American foreign policy in modern history, maybe ever. The idea that they are competent to continue to conduct our foreign policy, to make us more secure and make Israel secure, is preposterous.

Ever since they got in office the only thing on the march in the Middle East has not been freedom, it’s been Iran. Every single thing they’ve touched has been a near disaster.

Ah, the sweet sound of a Democrat taking the Republicons to the woodshed and mercilessly employing the Smack-o-Matic Deluxe 3000 Superpaddler. Gorgeous. Simply, gorgeous.

Almost makes me wish I watched morning talk shows, that.

One Week...

Only one week until the first ever Carnival of the Elitist Bastards. Get chore submissions in! There's still time left.

elitistbastardscarnival@gmail.com

Eggheads, Unite!

Talking Past Each Other: A Few Simple Rules For Christians Among Atheists

So much for getting things done tonight. And here I thought I had bags and bags of time, but all it takes is getting caught up in one Pharyngula thread and time goes spiralling down into a supermassive black hole. Research: nil. Work on this blog: nearly nil. Obsession with current discussion: stratospheric. Has been instructive, though, and a few Pharynguloids (is that what we're calling ourselves these days?) have stopped by, which is always more than welcome.

*Waves madly* Hello, you!

Right, well. In a nutshell for those who haven't the foggiest what I'm talking about: PZ posted a little notice about an actual atheist being interviewed on a local (MN) Christian radio station, Kenny got his ass kicked in the comments thread (just as he always does, the man's a masochist), and Karen Simon stopped by to snivel at us for being uncivilized bastards.

That sort o' thing doesn't play well to this crowd. Karen promptly got her ass handed to her, and things would have gone very badly for her indeed had she not apologized and explained herself. A fruitful discussion ensued. I'd like to think some progress was made, and will be made now she's dropped by here. It's certainly clarified a few things for me, but raised more questions than answers.

To wit: why the fuck do Christians do this to themselves? I understand the ones who come by to proselytize - it's what they do, they're like the Borg. But I do not understand why Christians dump their views into the thread and then get offended when the atheists proceed to pick them apart.

It's an atheist thread, moreover one filled with science-minded atheists who can spot a flaw in logic faster than a shark scents blood. Fuck, we annihilate each other over flaws in logic. What the fuck do Christians think we're going to do? Pat them on the head and coo over how nice their moderate delusion is? Not bleedin' likely, guv.

I think, from engaging in this discussion tonight, I begin to see some of the difficulties. We're talking past each other. For all we're speaking English, we don't speak the same language. We're alien to each other, and alas, very few Christians come into the atheists' territory willing to play by atheists' rules.

Do not even begin the "but the atheists aren't playing by Christian rules!" snivel. We played by those rules for ages, and they got the discussion absolutely nowhere. Our turn.

So. This shall develop as time goes on and I get a chance to observe more atheist-Christian interaction, but here's what I've got for now:

1. Understand that in our house, you will win no converts. Atheists for the most part weren't born or raised that way: a lot of them are ex-believers, and they're not going to be talked back into the fold. There's no argument under the sun you can use that they haven't heard a thousand times before. Time 1001 will make no damned difference. So just give it up. Shh before you even begin to proselytize. And if atheists mistake your attentions, don't get all butt-hurt: we run into so many proselytizers-in-sheep's-clothing that we're a little gunshy and apt to overreact. You may not have been attempting to convert, but if the atheist takes your discussion as such an attempt, apologize, clarify, and move right on.

2. Be clear about your purpose. I've noticed a lot of Christians get mightily offended when they say something, we snark back, and it turns into a shouting match because the Christian can't tell us what the fuck they're doing spouting off views not related to the thread to begin with. Explain. Don't assume we know what you're here for: we've already assumed the worst from the second you mentioned your faith. It's habit born from long experience. Remember, we've probably been dealing with a bunch of incoherent rabid fundies from several threads back, and our patience has probably worn thin long ago.

3. Refrain from demanding proof of God's non-existence. That's not what we're here for. Challenging an atheist to provide proof that God doesn't exist is just as useless as us demanding you to prove his existence by the rules of scientific evidence. If either one of us could accomplish those feats, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

4. Speaking of proof, the Bible isn't. Neither are personal anecdotes, fervent belief, or anything else subjective or self-referential. Neither is "but billions of people believe!" Billions of people once believed in a flat earth. Science PWND them. Too fucking bad. If you're going to get into the proof pissing contest, which you shouldn't, learn what science means by "proof."

5. Don't move the damned goal posts. That's a ridiculous trick and it'll get you spanked. If you can't answer the original challenge, just say so. Don't try moving the goal posts and pretending you just scored. You'll get annihilated, and you'll have deserved it. Evading the challenge is just as bad, by the way. Refusing to answer when you're the one who started the discussion just makes you look like a coward. Same with being happy to scrum until someone says something you don't like, and then falling back on the lofty, "I'm so above that, I refuse to discuss it with you" bullshit. If you don't want to accept the challenge, don't start it. Period.

6. No snivelling. No one's impressed by tears, whining, cries of "You're being so mean!" or "You're so unfair!" or "You just don't understand!" We're not here to sing kumbaya. We're not swayed by "Bu-bu-but it's what I believe, and you're disrespecting that!" arguments. We're atheists: religion gets no special pleading and no special treatment here, and getting choked up over it won't help you in the slightest. If you can't take that kind of heat, you have no business being in an atheist's kitchen. This extends to concern trolling about bad language, blasphemy, and other such things: you knew what you were getting in to. Your lectures won't change a damn thing. They'll just earn you the title of "concern troll," so if that's not what you came to be, refrain from snivelling and silly lectures about civility.

7. No pity. We bloody can't stand it. Some of you religious bastards seem to think that atheism is some horrible, nihilistic disease. "Poor buggers, they don't believe in God, how sad for them" drips from your every word. You yourself can't imagine how one could live a happy life without God, so you think we must be miserable. Newsflash: we're not. I have, in fact, met far more happy, unconflicted atheists than I have happy, unconflicted believers. We're free. We enjoy life. We love our families, friends, pets, and all of the other things you take joy in. What you fill with spirituality, we fill with other things. We notice no lack, and we don't appreciate being treated like poor victims who don't know any better.

8. Don't take it personally. When we're tearing apart your argument, we're not attacking you. We probably like you just fine, especially if you've contributed something useful to the discussion. But your arguments about God, well, they're going to suffer. Be prepared for it, and do try to give as good as you get. We respect someone who engages us openly, honestly, and holds their own to the best of their ability.

9. Absolutely under any circumstances never ever bring up that old "atheism is a religion too" chestnut. That's one of the dumbest things you could possibly say. Absence of belief is not a religion. We don't have "faith" in the non-existence of God. That's just one of those whiny, snivelly things religious people do to try to win arguments, and all it does is make you look like a total fuckwit. If you're here to earn any respect at all, do not shoot yourself in both legs by that snooty "atheism is religion" crap. And if you even begin to start with the "but you're really agnostics" bullshit, I shall give you such a smack.

10. A ready wit, a good sense of humor, and a willingness to give as good as you get are essential. Display those things, and the acrimony will probably go right away. Have fun with this stuff. Especially here.

11. We can agree to disagree. My best friend and I do it. We don't waste our time trying to change each other. He's religious, I'm not. That's the way it is. We agree to disagree on that point and move right along to the points we do agree on, which are legion (see his take on the Worldnutdaily, for starters). The point is not to win, but to play the game. Find points of commonality, achieve some understanding of each other's views even if we heartily disagree with those views, decide how we're going to work together for a better world without crowding each other too badly: these things we don't need to be in full agreement for. We don't need to have the same world view to be in harmony. Hell, we don't even need to be in harmony, when it comes right down to it. But we do need to concede the war as unwinnable, sometimes, and get past that fact.

12 (not 11 again, sorry bout that). Finally, there's the door. I hope you can stay, I truly do. I hope we get somewhere in our dialogue. But not if you're miserable. If you're deeply offended, outraged, upset, shocked, and battered, and you can't stand how mean we are, and you're angry at our outrageous blasphemy and godless ways, there's an exit. You don't have to be here. If we're getting nowhere, you can go somewhere else. Have a nice day. We really do wish you well.

*Karen should keep in mind that while this post was inspired by the Pharyngula thread, it is not aimed exclusively at her, but at all Christians who mix it up with atheists. She's not the only Christian who's gotten off on the wrong foot on an atheist blog, and she shan't be the last. This post will hopefully help them understand why we get so pissed at what they consider inoffensive behavior. And if any of them are offended by the rules, they should consult Rule #11 forthwith.

Should Karen Simon Stop By....

...show her the same respect and consideration she shows you. Should prove interesting, and perhaps instructive.

For a clue as to what I'm talking about, see here. And be sure to read past the initial outrage.

Progressive Conservative needs a friend. I think Karen's just the ticket.

Candidates and Classrooms: An Educational Viewpoint

Hello, readers!

It seems that I have neglected my promise of a weekly update. I recently asked our wonderful host for some ideas of topics that I might be able to comment on. I am only 18 years old, and never had much of a mind for politics, so most of the discussions here go right over my head.

However, there is one that I might be very qualified to reflect on. Education.

Bush has been in office eight long years now, (Eight. Christ. That still scares me.) which puts his first time in office when I was about 10 years old. That's early elementary school, which means that I have no real recollection of what education is like without Bush in office. So it was at first difficult to figure out how to comment on something for which I have no real frame of reference, but I knew that I have always heard of the NCLB, or No Child Left Behind act, one of Bush's little legacies he bestowed upon us lucky adolescents. So I took a few key ideas from that act and thought I'd share my thoughts.

Teacher Quality

One of the first things I came across was the idea of "Teacher Quality". It required basically three things: a teaching license, subject expertise, and a bachelor's degree. While certainly I agree that teacher's should not be ignorant fuckwits who don't actually know what they're talking about, I find these criteria are not particularly useful in accomplishing that. Subject expertise I would say does contribute to a teacher's ability, however with the emphasis on "teaching to the test" [see below] it is difficult to define what is expertise. Still, this doesn't help figure out what makes a teacher a good one.

The inherit problem here is that not everyone agrees what should be taught, and how to teach it. There are paradoxical problems in education about what we "need" to know. For example, in my Junior year literature class, we had this teacher named Stephenson. Poor woman, having to teach my class. Now, she was a perfectly intelligent human being, but here's a quick preview on our education:

The first day of class we read an article that told us that there are more than one "right" answer. Basically that any given situation could be interpreted various ways, that different viewpoints and perspectives will provide different ideas of what is "right", and they are all equally valid. Yet, when we try to analyze events in such novels as Huck Finn or A Scarlet Letter, we were obviously being steered towards the correct interpretation. The problem was that according to Stephenson, there were only three possible correct meanings behind any given metaphor:

Life
Death
God/Jesus

Oh, and phallic symbols.

While it was fun to figure out how every character in Finn fits into these categories, it's also troublesome when you are told that your opinion, your subjective interpretation is wrong.

Poor woman. We tormented her so much in class in so many ways; at one point, a student rode into class on top of a book cart, crashed into a desk and fell over in a heap. The same student would occasionally walk into class without pants. We would pass around a Spark Notes book before a test. I, meanwhile, sat in my corner and read and doodled and BS'ed my way through the tests. She ended up moving to England the last month of the school year, dumping a substitute on us. She hasn't come back yet.

So trying to coerce your students into telling them what you want is not a sign of good teaching. However, it's not always the teachers, its how they are told to teach, which brings me to the next point.

Teaching to a Test

In school, homework is pretty typical in most science, literature, or social studies classes. You are given some sort of comprehension assignment, usually reading, and are given a worksheet, which is usually just fill-in-the-blanks copies of said assignment. It's a basic process of taking in the information, storing it long enough to fill in on the dotted line, and forget it. While obviously certain aspects of class are slightly more useful or engaging, this works not only for the microscope assignments but the macro-scope goal of education: score well.

Education's entire goal is to score well on a test so that you can get into a better college. Really, that is what high school comes down to. It's all about teaching you what is going to be on the test. If it's not on the test, it doesn't get taught.

Another personal example:

I am just finishing up my AP/IB Biology II class. In that, the teacher rushes through a full year college-level course, switching between a bird's eye view of "This General Concept Might Be On The Test" to a very close inspection of "This Specific Section Will Be On The Test." Some sections we pass over entirely if it's not likely to be on the test, and we don't stop long enough in any of the sections to internalize the information in order to be useful for any period of time longer than the end of the testing period. Even then, with all the days off and vacations they ambush us with, we never have enough time to get all the information anyway. One 50 minute class (usually with anywhere from 30 to 45 minutes of actual learning, due to goofing off, homework questions, and the fact we never start on time) is NOT enough time in a day to learn anything.

It's far too often that I hear a teacher say, "We're skipping this section because you don't need it for the AP test".

The most rewarding science class I have ever taken was my Sophomore year Biology I class. The teacher, an amazing man with the name "Shindledecker", taught us how to think about biology. He'd talk with us all period long about what we're learning, showing us different ways to approach it, how it applies to our life, and tips on how to remember them. Not memorize them for a test, but how to actually make the mental connections between what we learn in class and what we learn in life, in order to apply this knowledge in a useful way. I might not be able to give you the scientific definition of the function of the Endoplasmic Reticulum of a cell, but I know that it's basically the "highway of the cell", which conceptually is far more useful than knowing the jargon. One day, we walked into class and on the board was the word "Salmon" circled. A few lines were connected to it, such as "dams", "bears", and "fishermen". Then we spent the entire period making connections between salmon and what it directly influences, and what those impacts would have on other factors, and so on and so forth.

However, the advanced classes, the classes in which you have the most potential to learn the most and apply it to life, are the classes which are forced to do well on tests. Thus, they must teach to the test.


See, because of NCLB, public schools only get their federal funding if they cooperate by conducting some kind of test on all students in the state as a method of measurement of educational progress. Almost all schools take the cheapest route; multiple-choice standardized tests. So they are forced to educate the students according to what these tests are on.

Now, this isn't all bad. Reading comprehension levels have increased, and the test scores themselves have gone up, if that means anything, though the scores are a pretty hollow victory considering what we're giving up.

However, NCLB opens up options for schools to "play" the system, such as giving the students "practice" exams, which are usually just last year's tests, to prepare us for the upcoming exam. The focus is entirely on doing well on the tests. It's quite ridiculous, really.

Restriction of Classes

No, not social classes. Because of the trends in education, non-core subject classes have been cut down ever year. My school used to offer all kinds of woodshop-type classes. We used to offer Russian as a language. While my school is particularly well off and still has many non-core classes, those classes as a whole have been reduced across the board. Focus on tests means that the students and staff are pushed towards math, reading, and the sciences, with a very low emphasis on arts, physical education, and similar courses.

This limits the curriculum. Let's borrow from every high schooler's friend, WikiPedia:

"Schools are required to use "scientifically based research" strategies in the classroom and for professional development of staff. Research meeting this label, which includes only a small portion of the total research conducted in the field of education and related fields, must involve large quantitative studies using control groups as opposed to partially or entirely qualitative or ethnographic studies, research methodologies which may suggest different teaching and professional development strategies but that do not result in evidence demonstrating efficacy"

Oh yeah, and there's one of my personal favorite little quirks of the NCLB:

"NCLB (In section 9528) requires public secondary schools to provide military recruiters the same access to facilities as a school provides to higher education institution recruiters. Schools are also required to provide contact information for every student to the military if requested."

Then of course, NCLB also wants all, and I mean ALL, as in 100% of students, to perform on the same level in the areas of math and reading. It's a lofty goal, but not one that I think we should be striving for. Students are too individual, each with their own ways of learning, to expect everyone to be on the same level as everyone else. It limits those who are advanced, and it pressures and punishes those who are behind.


I've gone on for long enough. There are other issues with education today, but it can be summed up thusly:

Modern American education is too centered on learning specific core subjects for the purpose of high performance on standardized tests in order to prove "educational progress", neglecting the individual needs of many students, and not teaching us the skills and imparting the knowledge that will make an actual difference on our lives.

Bush is leaving office. I don't know what will happen to education. Not everything is bad, of course, but if I could ask for a few changes with our new leader, it would be that education focuses less on test scores, possibly removing standardized testing for the purposes of federal financing and the goals outlined by NCLB completely.

Later, I'll comment more specifically on some of these topics. Including:

-Should teachers be paid according to a "merit pay" system?
-What should we actually teach our children?
-The role of technology in school
-Grade inflation
-Social pressures and influences in school

I am a Senior in high school, graduating on June 14th, this year. I have about three weeks left of school, so I will be reflecting a lot about my time in high school. 4 years, 32 classes. I got a lot to write about, so you'll be hearing from me again.


And everything changes
And nothing is truly lost.
-Neil Gaiman