Meta-Post: My development as a blogger

My writing as a blogger has evolved positively, in my opinion, since the year begun. My earlier blogs failed to provide a thesis or much direction to the posts, rather posing more questions without providing possible answers. In my post concerning the withdrawal from human society by various known figures I express my ponderings but few conclusions, "Does such a base existence provide greater reward and satisfaction than the consumeristic life most of us live? Does it lead to realizations and answers we would not otherwise find?" My post fails to provide any clear stance on the questions I raise, leaving the reader with few new ideas on the subject. My later posts however, establish my stance more clearly. In my post concerning the bias of historical documents I finish the post on a decided note, leaving no room in the reader's mind as to my opinion, "I doubt there has ever been a work of historical documentation written which truly refrains from bias." Although my opinion is clear though, I ensure not to present it as fact, but a view point, by the insertion of the words "I doubt'. This prevents my writing from appearing to contain poorly supported assertions.

My blogs have been successful in covering issues not just in one particular area but several:

my first blog is on a philosophical matter, as I discuss the concept of withdrawal. My second post is political as I discuss the building of the mosque near ground zero, while my third and fourth ones, which discuss documentation and human progress, concern historical matters. My last two examine social concepts such as perspectives on race today and the validity of public testing. My writing as a blogger has explored ranging subject areas rather than fixating on a particular one, increasing my growth as a writer. However, as my blogs have progressed, I have failed sometimes to provide substantial evidence for my claims, failing to back up stated facts with articles and data. My blog on the building of the mosque near ground zero is the only one which has truly taken the need for source evidence in my writing into account. As I continue to blog, I plan to employ the use of links in my writing more often, to more strongly validate my ideas.

My best post: A mosque at ground zero: cowardice or tolerance?

Testing what you know, and knowing how to test

This week in class we discussed the short comings of public school testing, and its unfortunate usage as a judging standard for students. I am of the opinion that while testing in itself will always have limitations, such as the inevitable influence of nerves on students, public testing could be modified from what it currently is so to provide a better, albeit not perfect, reflection of the students' abilities. Tests such as the SAT examine skills in math, science, english, and other optional areas. Such testing obviously gives an advantage to students of wealthier backgrounds whose parents can afford tutoring, and live in wealthier neighborhoods with more resourceful education systems.

Public testing ought not to test knowledge, acquired through years of schooling, but thought process. If testing could be modified to test the student's mental and cognitive abilities rather than his abilities in pose and poetry analysis, or algebra, the playing field could be leveled to a greater degree between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Tests could focus on areas such as spacial awareness, reasoning, and problem solving, in order to gain insight into the student's potential rather than his current level. Tests such as these would perhaps resemble IQ tests somewhat, and be near impossible to prepare for, with tutoring or not. Colleges might then be able to do a better job at selecting and drawing upon the maximum talent of their applicants.

Advantaged, disadvantaged, or neither?

In american studies this week we examined concepts of race, its definition and racial stereotypes. Among the issues discussed was that of so called genetic advantages present in different races genetic makeup. African americans are commonly stereotyped as athletically gifted over whites, while asians are commonly viewed as genetically apt in mathematics. However, scientific studies reveal little difference in the genetic makeup between races, and no genetic traits applicable to all people of a single race that would advantage them in any area. The explanation for racial dominance in various areas is in my opinion social.

It is hard to overlook the overwhelming number of african american players successful in the NFL, the success of Kenyan runners, or the african american identity of the world's greatest two boxers: Mike Tyson and Mohammed Ali. However, rather than attributing this success to genetic advantages, it can be attributed to their social circumstances: for many less privileged African americans, sports such as these are a route out of poverty and so many of them attempt to succeed in these areas as best they can. Asian dominance in mathematics and science may be attributed to cultural differences as well, as parents drive their kids especially hard to excel in these areas. My american studies teacher gave an example that demonstrated well the false views on genetic advantages: Jewish superiority in basketball was once attributed to their sly, deceptive makeup. If this isn't ridiculous I don't know what is.