Blog 10

Wollstonecraft, Kozol, & Woodson

"Pernicious Effects":

Pernicious Effects, as based on Wollstonecraft, revolves around the negative effect of teaching women and men differently. She suggests treating both genders as equals. If we do not do this, the we will have many pernicious effects on the development of the individual woman and man. It will be like traveling back centuries to when women and men did not share the same equal rights as they do today. According to Woodson, this is the same for African American's learning the European culture in schools. In Africa, they are taught of the African history and their mistakes, whereas when they come to America, they have no knowledge of the sort. American textbooks fail to talk about the failures of our society, and would much rather focus on the things that we did correctly. So, at an African student's standpoint, I believe that we need to focus on all of history, our own, and those of other descents, so that way, we can avoid history repeating itself over and over again, but just in separate societies and different time frames.

Women and Property:

Comparing women with property is somewhat similar to this essay written by Woodson. It talks about the inequality among African America students in our society learning about European culture. Although it is not as harsh as the extent of comparing women to property, the two do relate to each other. It is one minority group against another. When we compare women to property, we are stating that they have no rights to be educated. We then claim that these women should only do things of their past origin, like cooking, cleaning and the birthing children. So, comparing them to the essay, the reader can infer that we are not giving certain groups the same rights as the average white man. Since these papers were written a while ago, we have now undergone some development in our society. Progression of women and African Americans in more educated positions is increasing, but that does not mean that we don't have a long way to go.  

"Unnatural Distinctions":

I believe that Wollstonecraft is right when she states that the unnatural distinctions in society bring forward a cause-and-effect relationship towards women. Women are stereotypically known for being those who don't do much work outside of the house. Wollstonecraft explains that, "Those who gain wealth and comfort tend to become idle and fail to perform their moral obligations". What she is trying to say is that those who are stereotypically more rich, meaning the men, tend to have a pompous attitude about their success. Thus, causing them to take everything for granted, even their women. I believe that this unnatural distinction is causing women to think negatively about themselves. All that they are trying to do, majority of the time, anyway, is to make sure that they are loved and appreciated by their man. They just want to do everything that they can to make him happy, and I believe that some males take advantage of that, especially in today's day in age. So, the cause of men being wealthy and being the natural breadwinners of the family is leading to women thinking that they are only successful as what they originally were in the past. So, Wollstonecraft suggests that we look towards measures of equality to get the acceptance and appreciation that all women deserve.

Diversity in Schools:

According to Kozol, he states that diversity in schools is taught in the past and we spend very few time worrying about what is going on with discrimination in the present. I completely agree with Kozol's definition of diversity in schools. He states that many of the schools today that are integrated are as racially unjust as the Jim Crow South. Now, although we have advanced quite a lot from where we once were, we still have a long way to go for discrimination. I think that in order to guarantee that diversity in school becomes more accepted in today's society, we need to be able to discuss and focus on the issues of today. Whether it be opinions from peers, or news and media forums, diversity should be discussed in the past, present and future. Additionally, more diverse schools need to make seating charts of some sort to try to get rid of social discrimination norms. This could lead a normal African student from becoming close friends with a Latino individual. Whatever the reason, diversity should occur more often, so discrimination can be prevented.

Johnathan Kozol is best known for his theory of diversity in schools.

Mis-Education:

When Wollstonecraft is talking about miseducation, I believe that she is talking about the fact that women and men are taught differently in school settings. Girls are taught not to be scandalous. They're taught to take care of the children, cook and clean. The men are seen as the breadwinners. Although females are now possessing more educational positions than they once were, Wollstonecraft believes that we are still taught about our differences incorrectly. We should be viewed as individuals, as equals, not as two separate beings. If we are able to change the norms of society, which is what our country is currently heading towards, then females will be able to learn to love themselves and their male partners more than they do now. Nowadays, females are starting to take on positions which are traditionally more commonly acclaimed by men, so we are already headed in the direction of ridding ourselves of mis-education.

Mary Wollstonecraft is best known for defending the right of women and bringing forward the idea that they are just as powerful as men, and should be treated with the same equalities as them.

Blog 9

Dewey and Montessori

Scientific Pedagogy for Montessori:

The method of teaching according to Montessori is described as helping the student achieve success by merely aiding to their education. She states that teachers today are simply showing students how to get the right answer, whereas, in a Montessori-type school, they are simply helping the child figure out what they need to do in order to succeed with little to no help at all from the educator. Children love to explore, so the more opportunity teachers and parents give students to figure out a problem and solution on their own, the easier it will be for the children to succeed and be more prepared to learn new things. This is proven not only through children, but adults and young teenagers, too. When you think about it, if you are in a relationship with someone who everyone around you knows is not the best person for you to be with, until you realize that this guy or girl is not the one for you, regardless of how many times your friends and family warn you about them, then you will stay with them. The second you realize that you can do better than this, you leave. So, not only is it proven that educating the student in this matter helps them learn better in an academic environment, but it also prepares them for similar instances, as described above.

School Furniture and Children:

School furniture can either have a positive or negative effect on how the student learns. For example, when I was in high school, in all of my math classes, we had 6-7 rows, with five desks in each row. The walls were white and the teacher stood in one of two positions: the front of the classroom, or the slight corner by his/her desk. In my health class, however, we had these roll-y-chairs, all different colors, and one giant table where we sat in pods of four. It was in no organized manner, but the teacher was able to move freely from one point to another. It was also nice because we were able to use these pods that we were in as set groups for our semester class. I'm not one who is very interested in health education, but I passed that class with flying colors, and I really think that the arrangement and the different type of furniture helped me succeed in that class. So, if we make furniture that is somewhat painful to students, (causing back pain, or restricting our access to move around freely) I believe that students will continue to struggle in this type of classroom environment. Better furniture calls for better test scores.

Freedom in Education:

Freedom takes a large toll on the educational advancement of a child. If children are free to explore as they choose, not only will they be more successful, but it will give them the opportunity to realize what they are and are not interested in. I taught at a preschool during my senior year of high school, and we had a set time everyday for kids to choose which station that they wanted to go to. Some kids would go to every station that was offered, while others, like this little boy named Bryner, always went to the block building station because he loved the idea of solving problems in that manner. If we give students the opportunity to learn in this manner, it will take some longer than others. But, at least we will know that it will give them the most success in figuring out who they are and what they want to become. Isn't that what school should be about in the first place?

Maria Montessori is well known for her concept of aiding the child in

learning, rather than teaching the child and asking them to remember it.

"Thinking In Education":

Dewey's idea of "Thinking in Education," revolves around the idea that all thinking is experimental. Children will not be able to learn a new subject without having some prior experience or relationship to the thing that they are learning about. So, whether it be reading a book on the subject at matter before diving into the educational and experimental aspect of it, or just having students connect the concept that is to be learned back to past, current or future experiences, students will be able to successfully learn as individuals, with guidance from the teacher and their peers.

Conditions for "Thinking in Education":

Dewey suggests that in order to get students to think this way, they need to be able to solve problems. This helps stimulate their brain and causes them to think more about a scenario, in the class, or in real life. He also suggests that problems should be stimulated. These problems do not have to be super relatable to the individual, but should make sense. If Mary has two marbles, and Sally has three, how many marbles do they have together?: this is a problem that could occur in the classroom environment. But, for problem's that ask about why Kevin has two 3 legged, octopi, is that really relevant to the education of a child, or does it get their imagination rolling and thinking about unrealistic things. Problems that are mathematical and scientific should not be fictional because it distorts the truth to the child. Growing up, their imaginations are thriving, which is acceptable in the writing, reading, and creative activities that are encountered in class, but they should not be confused with reality, as they have the potential to be in STEM-related subjects. Overall, Dewey states that students will be able to think in education successfully and correctly, if they solve problems and are able to find probable solutions.

Best Process of Education for Dewey:

According to Dewey, the best process of education should be shared. Working with a group of individuals with similar experiences helps to combine ideas. If there is a problem on skiing and at least one student in the group has done it before, the children are likely to learn something new. Although the student telling the story is just sharing his experience in the field, this does not mean that he does not learn anything. When a new problem arises, he will then experience what others are learning from his current story, but in different context. Also, just because a story is shared to relate a problem to an individual's life, it could have no connection to the problem what-so-ever. However, when the child is trying to remember how to do this problem with a different sporting activity in the mix, he will think back to this problem and remember how he did it by making a connection to skiing. So, the best process of education is sharing and connection. Combine creative ideas from one student and let them create a new idea from another. It is truly a remarkable concept.

John Dewey, is best known for his ideas in stimulated problem solving to

help a child achieve academic success early on in life.

Blog 8

Adam Smith

Defending Smith's Views:

I believe that Smith is somewhat right when it comes to his work in "The Natural Progress of Opulence". When Smith explains that the town and the country need each other to coexist, I think that he is getting the main idea across. If you think about it, without the rural areas within the United States, where they raise livestock, and grow crops, we would have no produce, no dairy, and half of the things that we see on our shelves. All of the food we would see in the grocery stores would be processed and fake. Also, without machinery for farmers to use on their farmland, they would not be able to easily maintain a well-off living area for their animals, and would have trouble taking care of the food supply. It would be difficult for the farmers to individually pluck all of the corn from a field as quickly as a tractor or plow could. He satisfies my curiosity a lot with how the nations grow rich because it is something that I don't really think about. Even though the urban areas of our land might be more financially well-off than other areas, I think that both the rural, suburban, and urban areas of our nation can all qualify as "rich," in how well they are doing in that certain lifestyle, or way of life. 

Adam Smith, is best known for his idea that country and town
cannot exist without the other. He is also widely known for the idea
 that agriculture, manufacturing, and foreign relations are the greater part
 of every growing society. 

Wealth Today:

In older generations, wealth was seen as how much land an individual has, whereas today, no one even considers that when talking about wealth. You are paying more for a tiny apartment in the city of New York than you are for an open ranch in the state of Montana. So, based on the area of land in which an individual has, one can infer that wealth and land have no connection in today's society. However, that doesn't mean that we don't see wealth in other things. When I consider someone wealthy, I believe that they have a huge house, wear top brand clothes and picture them constantly getting the newest things. Growing up, I  lived in a neighborhood where every kid at my high school had a brand new car, didn't have to worry about a job and they all stuck to the newest fashion trend. When I think of wealth, I think of an individual's personality. If you come off as someone who is snobby, or pretentious, odds are that you have a lot of money. People who are considered wealthy also, stereo typically, boast about it. They try to show it off as much as possible to their friends and family. This can be seen through a few celebrities today, too. They've gotten so caught up in the fame that they become such divas. Channing Tatum, is an excellent example. When my best friend lived in Los Angeles, she got the opportunity to meet Channing Tatum. Not only was he a completely different person than he was on camera, but later that evening, her father ended up arresting him for driving under the influence. Of course, this incident didn't make it to the papers because he was out of jail within an hour. So, this shows that although land can be a great representation of your wealth, in today's society, it is best represented through an individual's character. 

Adam Smith emphasizes the importance of the Natural Progress
of Opulence within this book, entitled, "The Wealth of Nations".

To Agree or Disagree:

In order to continue the legacy of what Adam Smith was trying to get across in his eighth paragraph of his essay, The Natural Progress of Opulence," I believe that our society needs to continue to follow in Smith's path, but in a different order. Today, we rely heavily on agriculture and manufacturers, but we have little to no interest in foreign relations. The reason behind this is because people in America are losing their jobs to people across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The people across these oceans are willing to take jobs for less pay, which means, that the owners of these companies don't have to worry about losing any more money than they already are. These companies then benefit from the foreign relationship that they have with others across the sea. So, I believe that Adam Smith does have a good chain of events when it comes to focusing on agriculture, then manufacturing, and then foreign relations, but, if we keep foreign relations at a priority, I'm afraid that we will also lose our agricultural and manufacturing jobs and opportunities in the United States for these reasons, as well. We already are starting to see a losing trend in labor jobs in the United States of America, so what's next? 

Blog 7

Galbraith and Reich

The Affluent Society:

According to Galbraith's works, he explains that America is currently an Affluent Society. In his book, "The Affluent Society," he discusses the fact that after World War II, he considered our society to be "wealthy in the private sector, but poor in the public sector". By saying this, Galbraith meant that in private institutions, we consider ourselves to be more successful, whereas publicly, it's the opposite. According to his book, he also explains how affluence plays a major role in society, considering the name, "Affluent Society". Galbraith tells the reader that our society is considered affluent or wealthy, based on both private and public organization success. I believe that Galbraith is correct when he says that the United States is considered an Affluent Society, but to an extent. To most countries, we can be seen as strong, wealthy and snobby. Whereas, when Americans look at their country, they might not think that we are as wealthy, or successful, as other countries pursue us to be. All in all, I agree with Galbraith when he says that America has an Affluent Society, but only to an extent. If we were all successful and we did not have individuals living in poverty, then our society would be 100% considered an Affluent Society.

Should the Government Provide Jobs for Individuals Who Cannot Get Them, Themselves?

According to Reich's essay, he explains to the reader that their is a growing gap between the upper class in society and the lower class in society and states that although it has not yet fully effected the middle class, it has the potential to. Personally, I believe that it is not the government's job to find work for individuals who cannot find it themselves. I know back at home in Illinois, I live around 30 minutes from Chicago, and on almost every street corner, a job opening is listed. Even though these jobs are not always the high quality that people are looking for, I believe that it is almost idiotic for people to not try to get a job and state that they cannot find one. If it's not in your field, then grow in a simpler job, work for more hours, while also looking for jobs in what you wish to pursue. You aren't going to always get the dream job, dream boss, or dream location that you have always wanted. There will always be room for adjustment and flexibility. So, even though I agree with Reich when he claims that there is a large gap between the highest and lowest social class, I think that individuals should not be so worried about the beginning of a struggle or tough journey when getting a job, but should be thinking more about where this time in their life will take them. They should be dreaming about the opportunities that are about to arise because of this.

John Galbraith believed highly in the power of bringing attention to those

in poverty and allowing them to escape it with help from the government.

Robert Reich made a statement that all individuals should realize that there

is a substantial and unfair difference between the upper class and lower class in today's society.

Blog 6

Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie

Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat:

The Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat are the basic understanding to the study of Marxism. Marxism consists of struggle. It states that in order to create a human society, it must develop under a class struggle or conflict. The Bourgeoisie, are known as the ruling class. Typically, this is the wealthier class among the group. They control the Proletariats, known as the working or enslaved class of individuals. So, the Bourgeoisie are economically more well off than the Proletariat. Marxism is understood as a conflict between the Bourgeoisie that control the means of production and give direction to the Proletariats, who follow in these acts by selling their hard work and labor for money/wages, and or food. Marx believed that these conditions, imprinted on a society, are typically determined through obscured economic leaders and or groups. Overall, Karl Marx believed that a society could not be defined unless a conflict among class was present before, during or after the creation or destruction of a community.

National Identity and Expanding the World Market for Goods:

The expanding World Market for Goods causes the society to have less National Identity. This reasoning is because the more international involvement that we have, the more positivity we have among groups. With this good relationship between countries, there is no opportunity for conflict. In order to create a human society, there must be a problem to resolve against the ruling class and the labor class. However, since everyone is working together, then nothing needs to be fixed or resolved.

Proletariat Benefits with Communism:

Marx believed that a society run by the ruling class would lead to a capitalist regime, giving the Proletariats no sense of equality at all. He thought that the natural instability that comes with a wealth-based leadership would benefit the working class. In his theory, he believed that the Proletariats would rebel against the Bourgeoisie, which would lead to a victory in power for the working class when their was fault and struggle within the upper class. This communist society, created by the Proletariats, would lead to provided an equal salary and wage among all individuals. So, in the case of communism, no one would ever have to worry about struggle.

Karl Marx was a well known revolutionary socialist, whose famous
works included "The Communist Manifesto," and "Das Capital".

Should Wealthy People Follow Carnegie's Example?:

I do believe that the rich should follow in Carnegie's example when he states that "this could solve the problem between the rich and the poor thing," but only to an extent. He cannot force the wealthier class to give all of their earnings to the poor. Either these people inherited their money, or they worked hard to receive this money. However, I do believe that a sense of charity must occur for tranquility to reside among the different economic classes. Overall, Andrew Carnegie's idea of spreading the wealth in the upper class is a good idea and should result in respect and thankfulness from the lower class.

Bill Gates and Andrew Carnegie:

Since leaving Microsoft and dedicated the remainder of his life to sharing his wealth with the foundation, I do not believe that his idea of spreading his earnings will benefit others and resolve the problem between the rich and the poor. I think that the way Bill Gates is dedicating his life to helping others within the foundation, is wonderful; however, Bill Gates is only doing this within Microsoft. So, the best charity that he can offer individuals include grants towards projects similar to that of Microsoft, or that are enhancing technological development. Some of his money has been spent towards charitable foundations, and towards scientific research. As explained before, however, majority of his donations will go towards more technological research, which are relatable to his Microsoft program.

Andrew Carnegie is best known for his idea of "Spreading the Wealth

between the Rich and the Poor" to create harmony among individuals.