Condom companies are aiming to sell condoms to boys as young as 12, starting in Switzerland (of course it's Europe who gets it first, though I was genuinely surprised it wasn't Holland or Finland). Family-planning groups and anti-AIDS agencies proposed to have this child-friendly option after research showed that teens were having unprotected sex. (Really, Europe, you guys are a bit behind in this area if you think kids are just recently having unprotected sex.)
The new condoms, "Hotshot" will be 1.7 inches in diameter (compared with the normal 2 inches).
Nancy Bodmer, the head researcher, reported that these (Swiss) kids didn't have a very developed sexual knowledge, nor did they prefer to have protected sex. They don't understand the risks and consequences of sexual intercourse, and should the consequences rear their ugly heads, it was goodbye girlfriend.
And to think Europe was advanced in everything. I guess they're only human too.
Switzerland is the first and only country where these mini condoms will be sold, but the UK has shown some interest.
___________________________
I can't even imagine in my head a 12 year old engaged in sexual intercourse. Childhood innocence is extinct. I don't want to be a radical conservative, but this is pretty ick. I have a few issues though. I get the purpose: to prevent diseases and pregnancy. However, would mass-marketing these tiny condoms actually encourage sexual activity in that age group?
We're also creating a double standard. We want kids to be free and happy and not be restricted or burdened with adult things (like politics), yet we're marketing these adult things to them, with the help of the media. Sex is in over half the songs (ugh Birthday Sex) we hear on the radio, and yet we tell kids, "I support your freedom and stuff, but we want you to be kids." Children are torn between what their parents want and what the reality is like. After all, that's when puberty kicks in.
And speaking of puberty, I completely see the point of these tiny condoms. Testosterone usually kicks in when a boy is 9, peaking when he is around 14-16. Funny thing with testosterone: it makes the "sexual" gland in the brain a lot larger and positioned at the frontal cortex, which is why it seems to us that males are perverted. Not to mention, men have a sexual area in the brain that is 2.5 times larger than in females. So if a guy wants to experiment with girls, that's normal, but not normal.
Normal because it's biological, but not normal because of society's concept of childhood. However, this is needed because of the lack of sexual knowledge Bodmer claims there is, and because there are a lot more serious and disastrous diseases more than in the 1960s.
Even after all the facts, though, I still think 12 year olds having sex is just gross.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
America's rigged to let terrorists rule
Since you're my only follower 'cause someone forced me to make a tumblr D; I guess I should write more than one post, yeah? xD
So I was on youtube, and one of the TYT (The Young Turks) vid/podcast clips was really interesting. The Miss USA pageant winner this year is a Muslim girl, and this "Conservative Commentator" (as labelled by Fox News. Insert lulz hurr.) Debbie Schlussel, goes all like, "This country's rigged so that only Muslim girls would win!"Oh pshaw, you neo-Nazi!
By the way, Debs is a pretty fat, white, blond-hair-blue-eyes type of white woman, probably in her 40s. Her conspiracy theories are so out of this world you'd be wondering whether she should have belonged back in the holocaust.Anyhoo, the last time a Muslim girl won was probably in the 80s! And this is like, the first in a long time. CAN WE SAY HATERRRR.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Unschooling
Credits go to Gabbi for sharing this video.
So this is probably one of my few posts not related to Canadian anything, but since it's about education it's going to make it onto this page.
I completely agree with nurturing creativity and not restraining kids because, as some psychologist or whoever has said in their study, it's the social norms and expectations that kill our future's creativity by forcing them into jobs that make them less human and more robotic.
This laissez-faire style isn't going to open doors for them. What child would have the sudden interest spark in them to learn calculus, or history, etc?
Basically my opinions echo with The Young Turks.
Also, by crippling the children's opportunities, they'll only slow down the society and make it less productive. They should be shown opportunities for the future careers, but not "forcefully". Those parents in the video act as if school is an army camp where people brainwash you, and kick you if you don't comply. School isn't like that. School is a place where you can learn your stuff, and if you don't understand, then you have at least one teacher who can help you through, or you can go to peer tutor programs.
In addition, these children aren't only missing out on the compulsory courses which make a citizen productive, but these children will be lacking in the relationships area. How will they know how to communicate with authority figures? Their parents don't believe in punishment or even discipline, not even the benefits of health. How will they be able to function in the workplace? Another issue is how they can communicate with their peers later in their lives. After a decade and some odd years of being spoiled and pampered to their every whim, they'll need to learn how to compromise and negotiate with their peers, which they have not learned in their past lives.
Final comment (or so), "I'll just pick up a textbook and I would learn." What? We aren't all "the Rain Man", and even the real Rain Man had to put in at least 10 000 hours of hard gruelling training over the course of a decade (~3 hours per day) to be able to memorize books right off the bat. If people could just "learn", per se, nobody would go to school. We would just read a book, throw it out and do our job.
Now why do doctors take at least 8 years to qualify in the medical field?
Even if I don't go so far as to talk about their relationships when they're adults, they'll be hit right in the face when they reach college or university when they lack those key subjects, or even how to behave around professors and other peers.
Oh America, what will we do with you?
New curriculum for kindergarten: full-day
Today, the bill to extend the kindergarten day has been passed.
Basically, this bill says that instead of having the choice of choosing morning or afternoon kindergarten sessions for a toddler, the normal kindergarten day will be from 9am to 3pm.
In a way, this is good because this makes teaching primary/junior grades much more attractive: the pay should be higher while you retain the same amount of education you have gained in your post-secondary institutions, the children will definitely learn more (assuming the teachers are consistent with their style of teaching) and the school staff can formulate better curricula in the future because they have more resources to work with. All in all, it seems like a pretty good deal.
Before this bill was passed, some parents were concerned about the "new kindergarten" being a type of watered down Grade 1, with tests and evaluations. In reality, this new curriculum is going introduce the basics of language, math, science, arts, physical and personal development through play.
Contrary to the new sex ed curriculum (which has been brought down "from the shelf", as McGuinty cleverly worded) of adding new content, the newly introduced kindergarten curriculum does not add extra material, but it offers more opportunities to learn "more broadly and deeply".
The new curriculum, which was posted on the Ministry of Education's site, is a mix between the existing kindergarten curriculum and a document signed in 2007 designed for the Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT). Both emphasize play as a medium for discovering the basics of learning. Full-day kindergarten classes will be led by the teacher and an early childhood educator, where the child will learn the concepts expected to be grasped by the time they reach grade one, and also real-life teaching tips found in the ELECT guidelines.
The new program highlights the significance of oral language to catapult the children into learning reading and writing, and using literacy materials throughout the class to keep the information fresh and consistent.
The Ministry will be training teachers and early childhood educators near the end of April, which is approximately now.
Once again, I believe that this is a great leap forward for the Ministry of Education, so this probably evens out with the remark I made about the establishing of Africentric schools. Other than that though, I think we really need to focus on some important aspects of this curriculum. It doesn't seem that the bill has mentioned anything about nap times for the children. Nap times are important, particularly for children because they do need to have a quiet time to themselves. Not trying to do a comparison check, but in France, they have nap times for adults as well because it has been proven that nap times in the middle of the day prove to be beneficial for the psyche and for the body, thus leading to more productivity.
Some parents worry about the length of the day for children. Actually, there are children who have been attending daycare, and they are there from hours as early as 7am to hours as late as 6pm if their family happens to be a dual-income family. If children as young as 3 can handle it, then I personally do not see the problem with a 4 year old attending a 9 to 3. The skills they learn in full-day are going to benefit the children in the long term, and they will be much better prepared for grade one.
Also, the results, as some parents argue, won't take as long as they think. Just measuring their progress from 10 years ago to now for at least a 5-year curve will be enough. Did the kids really attain these skills? Did they seem to absorb more in the full-day than the half-day?
Besides, I thought half-day kindergarten was pretty much daycare itself. Mine was in Hong Kong, and we didn't have as many playthings like sandboxes and things like that. We did mostly school stuff, like dictations, small tests, writing stories, drawing, etc. Aside from proficiency in English, I was well prepared for grade one regarding math, art, and science skills. Although there will most likely be a difference in progress for children whether the kindergarten is half-day or full-day, I don't believe it's a make-or-break factor. It all depends on how well the teacher can the kids, whether through play or not.
Basically, this bill says that instead of having the choice of choosing morning or afternoon kindergarten sessions for a toddler, the normal kindergarten day will be from 9am to 3pm.
In a way, this is good because this makes teaching primary/junior grades much more attractive: the pay should be higher while you retain the same amount of education you have gained in your post-secondary institutions, the children will definitely learn more (assuming the teachers are consistent with their style of teaching) and the school staff can formulate better curricula in the future because they have more resources to work with. All in all, it seems like a pretty good deal.
Before this bill was passed, some parents were concerned about the "new kindergarten" being a type of watered down Grade 1, with tests and evaluations. In reality, this new curriculum is going introduce the basics of language, math, science, arts, physical and personal development through play.
Contrary to the new sex ed curriculum (which has been brought down "from the shelf", as McGuinty cleverly worded) of adding new content, the newly introduced kindergarten curriculum does not add extra material, but it offers more opportunities to learn "more broadly and deeply".
The new curriculum, which was posted on the Ministry of Education's site, is a mix between the existing kindergarten curriculum and a document signed in 2007 designed for the Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT). Both emphasize play as a medium for discovering the basics of learning. Full-day kindergarten classes will be led by the teacher and an early childhood educator, where the child will learn the concepts expected to be grasped by the time they reach grade one, and also real-life teaching tips found in the ELECT guidelines.
The new program highlights the significance of oral language to catapult the children into learning reading and writing, and using literacy materials throughout the class to keep the information fresh and consistent.
The Ministry will be training teachers and early childhood educators near the end of April, which is approximately now.
Once again, I believe that this is a great leap forward for the Ministry of Education, so this probably evens out with the remark I made about the establishing of Africentric schools. Other than that though, I think we really need to focus on some important aspects of this curriculum. It doesn't seem that the bill has mentioned anything about nap times for the children. Nap times are important, particularly for children because they do need to have a quiet time to themselves. Not trying to do a comparison check, but in France, they have nap times for adults as well because it has been proven that nap times in the middle of the day prove to be beneficial for the psyche and for the body, thus leading to more productivity.
Some parents worry about the length of the day for children. Actually, there are children who have been attending daycare, and they are there from hours as early as 7am to hours as late as 6pm if their family happens to be a dual-income family. If children as young as 3 can handle it, then I personally do not see the problem with a 4 year old attending a 9 to 3. The skills they learn in full-day are going to benefit the children in the long term, and they will be much better prepared for grade one.
Also, the results, as some parents argue, won't take as long as they think. Just measuring their progress from 10 years ago to now for at least a 5-year curve will be enough. Did the kids really attain these skills? Did they seem to absorb more in the full-day than the half-day?
Besides, I thought half-day kindergarten was pretty much daycare itself. Mine was in Hong Kong, and we didn't have as many playthings like sandboxes and things like that. We did mostly school stuff, like dictations, small tests, writing stories, drawing, etc. Aside from proficiency in English, I was well prepared for grade one regarding math, art, and science skills. Although there will most likely be a difference in progress for children whether the kindergarten is half-day or full-day, I don't believe it's a make-or-break factor. It all depends on how well the teacher can the kids, whether through play or not.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
How to be a redneck
I was strolling in Wal-Mart and I saw this game. It wasn't on sale: it had a pretty hefty price of around $25. Or $30.
It's intended for audiences 16+.
I completely get why it's for older players, but do we really need to reinforce the stereotypes? Questions in the game include:
You might be a Redneck if... you wash your car more often than you wash your _____.
1. hair
2. kids
3. clothes
You might be a Redneck if... your mother doesn't put on _____ to go grocery shopping.
1. makeup
2. shoes
3. a bra
I get that they're jokes, but even racial jokes do sting. And the thing is, some people might find these jokes funny because they think it's true, and that shows us what type of society we live in. It's a bit sad that even in a multicultural setting like Toronto we would see these types of games. There's pretty much no difference if we call this a game teaching people how to racially profile each other.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
McGuinty fights back
This will be just a quick post.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says no to the newly revised sex ed curriculum. He says that although the intentions are good, this is not the way to deliver it, and the general public has reacted negatively to the new curriculum. People need to get used to the idea before implementing it province-wide.
For once, I am happy that we have such a Premier.
Firstly, I have no problem with the intentions. The gist of the new sex ed (as outlined in my previous post below) seems probable. Grade 6 does not seem to be too early for learning about homophobia, and grade 7 doesn't seem too early to talk about the "sexual acts".
Although the studies do show that kids are engaged in sexual activity a lot earlier than we would like them to be, and also the age has almost halved in the last decade, it's definite we should do something about this. However, it only seems that the professionals (aka profs, researchers, scientists) know about this, and parents are left in the dust.
I believe that we should educate the parents on what the issue is at hand before putting in a new curriculum on sex ed. Anyone would be shocked to find out that sex ed is beginning when we are 9 years old. Then afterwards, maybe we can ask the PTA or other parents via e-survey on what they feel would be a good option to educate their kids with.
I really think that the main problem here is that the parents are left behind. It's their kids that'll be affected, so really, we should talk to the parents before hastening a revised curriculum.
Besides. There are other things to fix, like the TTC, which was the best transportation system in the 70s. It's 2010 now, and we're still using little pieces of paper and metal coins. Come on, Toronto, Hong Kong and Singapore are using smart cards. Even the Netherlands are doing something of the same sort.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says no to the newly revised sex ed curriculum. He says that although the intentions are good, this is not the way to deliver it, and the general public has reacted negatively to the new curriculum. People need to get used to the idea before implementing it province-wide.
For once, I am happy that we have such a Premier.
Firstly, I have no problem with the intentions. The gist of the new sex ed (as outlined in my previous post below) seems probable. Grade 6 does not seem to be too early for learning about homophobia, and grade 7 doesn't seem too early to talk about the "sexual acts".
Although the studies do show that kids are engaged in sexual activity a lot earlier than we would like them to be, and also the age has almost halved in the last decade, it's definite we should do something about this. However, it only seems that the professionals (aka profs, researchers, scientists) know about this, and parents are left in the dust.
I believe that we should educate the parents on what the issue is at hand before putting in a new curriculum on sex ed. Anyone would be shocked to find out that sex ed is beginning when we are 9 years old. Then afterwards, maybe we can ask the PTA or other parents via e-survey on what they feel would be a good option to educate their kids with.
I really think that the main problem here is that the parents are left behind. It's their kids that'll be affected, so really, we should talk to the parents before hastening a revised curriculum.
Besides. There are other things to fix, like the TTC, which was the best transportation system in the 70s. It's 2010 now, and we're still using little pieces of paper and metal coins. Come on, Toronto, Hong Kong and Singapore are using smart cards. Even the Netherlands are doing something of the same sort.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Sex ed in grade 3
Starting from September 2010 for elementary schools, and September 2011 for high schools, sex ed will be undergoing a revised curriculum for sex ed. This will be the gist of the new curricula:
These controversial changes have parents and even some teachers angry and infuriated. Vilia Milic, a retired Hamilton teacher, says that childhood innocence is rapidly becoming extinct, and that it's becoming problematic. A Christian father says that it is "completely inappropriate" to teach third graders about same sex relationships and all that when it has no relevance to them at this point in their lives.
However, there is relevance because children are hitting puberty earlier than they were in the last decade, so it only makes sense to teach sex ed a grade earlier, says Flicker. Of course, children psychologically develop at different rates, but it's much more beneficial to supply them with sexual knowledge before the sexual activity starts. As most teenagers know, about 1/3 of them have already engaged in sexual activity before they reach high school, which is a pretty scary number.
It's also been discovered that some teachers avoid sexual education because teaching it makes them uncomfortable, and kids ask the darnedest questions that put them on the spot. The province decided to change the lessons by making them more specific so teachers are more prepared to answer questions. To ease off the adolescent awkwardness (pardon the pun), public health workers will be visiting in and out of schools since they have experience with these subjects.
Personally I think it's great that they're going to change the curriculum to keep up with the times. Girls as young as 5 year old are getting their first period; how are we going to explain to them about the birds and the bees? This case is one of the rarest, but currently, the average age for boys to be hit with testosterone is 9, and when they are 13-15, that is when their hormones peak, and sexual pursuit takes up the majority of their frontal cortex. With more and more food additives in the market, it is no wonder that children are experiencing puberty much earlier.
These changes are extremely controversial, and families will have all kinds of opinions ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other, but we must face facts. Children are becoming engaged in sexual activity earlier than we would like them to be, whether we like it or not. To deprive them of this new sexual knowledge is only going to harm them because they don't know what they are getting themselves into. Teenagers nowadays are still debating over whether oral sex is real sex because of the location of penetration. Also, this new knowledge can help children make decisions concerning their sexual lives and resisting peer pressure. Knowledge is power, and depriving of such power to resist is only contradictory to our beliefs.
It won't be easy, and it probably will not go down as smooth as we'd like it to, but this awkward sex ed will hopefully reduce the amount of kids learning sex ed "the hard way".
Most of this post originated from here and here.
- Grade 3: "invisible differences" such as sexual orientation and gender identity
- Grade 4: puberty and its physical/social changes (now taught in grade 5)
- Grade 5: the concept of personal desire ("liking someone in a certain way")
- Grade 6: gender stereotypes; homophobia; personal pleasure in masturbation, vaginal lubrication, and wet dreams
- Grade 7: STDs and prevention measures; sexual acts such as oral/anal sex
- Grade 8: sexual identity and dating violence
- Grade 9: gender-based violence, sexual harassment and more detail about previously covered issues.
These controversial changes have parents and even some teachers angry and infuriated. Vilia Milic, a retired Hamilton teacher, says that childhood innocence is rapidly becoming extinct, and that it's becoming problematic. A Christian father says that it is "completely inappropriate" to teach third graders about same sex relationships and all that when it has no relevance to them at this point in their lives.
However, there is relevance because children are hitting puberty earlier than they were in the last decade, so it only makes sense to teach sex ed a grade earlier, says Flicker. Of course, children psychologically develop at different rates, but it's much more beneficial to supply them with sexual knowledge before the sexual activity starts. As most teenagers know, about 1/3 of them have already engaged in sexual activity before they reach high school, which is a pretty scary number.
It's also been discovered that some teachers avoid sexual education because teaching it makes them uncomfortable, and kids ask the darnedest questions that put them on the spot. The province decided to change the lessons by making them more specific so teachers are more prepared to answer questions. To ease off the adolescent awkwardness (pardon the pun), public health workers will be visiting in and out of schools since they have experience with these subjects.
Personally I think it's great that they're going to change the curriculum to keep up with the times. Girls as young as 5 year old are getting their first period; how are we going to explain to them about the birds and the bees? This case is one of the rarest, but currently, the average age for boys to be hit with testosterone is 9, and when they are 13-15, that is when their hormones peak, and sexual pursuit takes up the majority of their frontal cortex. With more and more food additives in the market, it is no wonder that children are experiencing puberty much earlier.
These changes are extremely controversial, and families will have all kinds of opinions ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other, but we must face facts. Children are becoming engaged in sexual activity earlier than we would like them to be, whether we like it or not. To deprive them of this new sexual knowledge is only going to harm them because they don't know what they are getting themselves into. Teenagers nowadays are still debating over whether oral sex is real sex because of the location of penetration. Also, this new knowledge can help children make decisions concerning their sexual lives and resisting peer pressure. Knowledge is power, and depriving of such power to resist is only contradictory to our beliefs.
It won't be easy, and it probably will not go down as smooth as we'd like it to, but this awkward sex ed will hopefully reduce the amount of kids learning sex ed "the hard way".
Most of this post originated from here and here.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Guidance counselors lack guidance
Most of us have suffered the unhelpful guidance of guidance counselors in high school to decide which post-secondary institution to go to, so why is it surprising to see that students give poor ratings to guidance counselors? Are they unfairly unappreciated?
As a former high school student, I have to agree with the American students that guidance counselors do not provide substantial nor effective advice to help us choose schools. 40% of American students believe that the guidance these counselors provided were only poor or fair for helping them think about their future careers.
The problem lies in the counselor's job description, which the name of the job conceals pretty well. Counselors are responsible for administrative tasks, discipline issues, crisis counseling, scheduling (former and present high school students know this all too well), lunchroom duties, study hall duties, standardized testing (I have not seen much of this in Toronto), attendance, truancy, and substitute teaching. This list alone has already taken up an entire paragraph. However, in Toronto, our guidance counselors do not handle standardized testing, attendance or truancy unless it is somehow linked to deviant student behaviour. With such a list, it is easy to see why guidance counselors receive such poor ratings for post-secondary institution decisions.
Guidance counselors should not be deemed responsible for some of the tasks, such as scheduling, lunchroom/study hall duties, attendance and truancy. Although we are past the stage of elementary school, where the school office handled the above duties except lunchroom/study hall duties, guidance counselors are staff who counsel students and provide them guidance, whether in their life or in school. They should not be handling school office tasks such as attendance and truancy, and teachers themselves should be the ones monitoring lunchrooms and study halls. Schools can hire school psychologists, or hire more administrative staff, but with budget cuts, this is probably not going to happen. Having guidance counselors be responsible in almost all fields is too much to ask for; as a result, they are not masters in any field. They only know a little bit of each, and that does not provide enough information for students.
Aside from the elaborate job description, another problem is that counselors are not taught university and college information in graduate school. Counselors earn a Master's degree, but they were never taught about financial aid or the university/college admission process. They learn on the job and many students suffer as a by-product. It is rather reasonable why they were not taught such dynamic concepts: each year, many schools change their admissions and scholarships, government financial aid is subject to change without notice. Changing the curriculum of graduate schools to suit the needs of separate colleges and separate financial aid may seem too much work for process that change annually. However, graduate schools can still teach about the general university/college admission process, and self-help school decisions books should definitely be included in the textbook lists.
With budget cuts on the rise (pardon the irony), guidance counselors are seen less important as time progresses. The processes would most likely remain as they are because of lesser funding, and partnered with poor ratings, job cuts would also be the common trend in schools, hence increasing the ratio, which will only produce worse effects than the present. Perhaps people should be hired for the jobs they are supposed to do instead of lumping everything into one.
As a former high school student, I have to agree with the American students that guidance counselors do not provide substantial nor effective advice to help us choose schools. 40% of American students believe that the guidance these counselors provided were only poor or fair for helping them think about their future careers.
The problem lies in the counselor's job description, which the name of the job conceals pretty well. Counselors are responsible for administrative tasks, discipline issues, crisis counseling, scheduling (former and present high school students know this all too well), lunchroom duties, study hall duties, standardized testing (I have not seen much of this in Toronto), attendance, truancy, and substitute teaching. This list alone has already taken up an entire paragraph. However, in Toronto, our guidance counselors do not handle standardized testing, attendance or truancy unless it is somehow linked to deviant student behaviour. With such a list, it is easy to see why guidance counselors receive such poor ratings for post-secondary institution decisions.
Guidance counselors should not be deemed responsible for some of the tasks, such as scheduling, lunchroom/study hall duties, attendance and truancy. Although we are past the stage of elementary school, where the school office handled the above duties except lunchroom/study hall duties, guidance counselors are staff who counsel students and provide them guidance, whether in their life or in school. They should not be handling school office tasks such as attendance and truancy, and teachers themselves should be the ones monitoring lunchrooms and study halls. Schools can hire school psychologists, or hire more administrative staff, but with budget cuts, this is probably not going to happen. Having guidance counselors be responsible in almost all fields is too much to ask for; as a result, they are not masters in any field. They only know a little bit of each, and that does not provide enough information for students.
Aside from the elaborate job description, another problem is that counselors are not taught university and college information in graduate school. Counselors earn a Master's degree, but they were never taught about financial aid or the university/college admission process. They learn on the job and many students suffer as a by-product. It is rather reasonable why they were not taught such dynamic concepts: each year, many schools change their admissions and scholarships, government financial aid is subject to change without notice. Changing the curriculum of graduate schools to suit the needs of separate colleges and separate financial aid may seem too much work for process that change annually. However, graduate schools can still teach about the general university/college admission process, and self-help school decisions books should definitely be included in the textbook lists.
With budget cuts on the rise (pardon the irony), guidance counselors are seen less important as time progresses. The processes would most likely remain as they are because of lesser funding, and partnered with poor ratings, job cuts would also be the common trend in schools, hence increasing the ratio, which will only produce worse effects than the present. Perhaps people should be hired for the jobs they are supposed to do instead of lumping everything into one.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Moving backwards in history
Toronto's first Africentric school opened on September 8, 2009. Everyone's celebrating about how the Black people can learn about their culture and history and so forth, hooray. The Blacks' history won't be ignored! Kudos!
Not really.
What we are currently doing is taking apart the work done by the people who fought for unsegregated schools in the 60s. People died in that reform, lost their careers, some even their families. Now we are passing a bill saying, "Let's open a Black school where students are Black and the staff are also Black so we can learn about Black culture and Black history."
I have nothing against learning different cultures; it provides a new set of perspectives in life, but to pass a bill and establish a school using taxpayer money? Most taxpayers aren't even Black, and what if we don't support Africentric schools because of some issues?
Some people believe that by performing "affirmative action", we are eliminating racism because racism is renowned for discriminating others and putting our race as superior over the others. However, I have never seen the point of affirmative action because it is only a different name for
racism. Supporters of affirmative action say that it just highlights the discriminated race without discriminating other races. That's fine, but in this case it's going to raise some issues, partly because it's intertwined in the legal system. We open the Africentric schools because we want to focus on Black history and its role in Canadian history, but what about other groups who were also involved in Canadian history, such as the Chinese (and the opium case), or the Natives. Should we also open an Aboriginal school for them to specifically learn their history?
The following issues will discuss about the role of Africentric schools in Education.
Africentric schools are only around the elementary level. They may learn about their Black history and culture, but what do they do after grade 8? Presently, high schools are not Africentric, nor do they cover much of Black history. When they graduate the post-elementary institutions will remove their focus away from Black history. To emphasize the importance of Black history in schools, implementing only Africentric elementary schools will not go far because there are no later institutions which can reinforce the importance of Black history, hence the effort and intentions of Africentric schools go to waste. Not only does the emphasis of Black history become lost in the later years, but the standards would most likely be different than "normal" elementary schools because the purpose of Africentric schools is to decrease the ridiculously high 40% drop out rate. How else do we lower the drop out rate other than lowering our standards so many more students are passing? Lying to ourselves and dumbing down the curriculum (similar to my post of "Dumbing it down for the dumb") will not work, and it will only produce non-functional citizens into our already not-so-productive society.
As a poor rebuttal from one of the Trustees who voted in favour of Africentric schools, Donna Harrow states that "No one ever said little white cihldren couldn't come to this school." This is a poor defense, to say the least, because the Africentric school has already gained a bad reputation in the bill. It's true that nobody is rejecting white children as students, but they would reject teachers who do not have enough "African" percentage in their ancestry, so they are prohibited to teach in an Africentric school.
As I have stated earlier in this post, should we also open schools for the Latino/Latina students who are also suffering a high drop out rate? And how about other groups who want to have their culture emphasized as well? Currently, there are Saturday school credit programs (meaning these courses count towards your high school credits) which do teach culture and history of a certain ethnic group, such as Chinese (both Cantonese and Mandarin), Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Urdu, Punjabi, Swahili, and many more languages. We don't need to open up a new school with a new curriculum to teach. If these Saturday school programs were more publicized in the school system and more known to teachers, then we don't need to spend non-Black taxpayer money building a Black school which their non-Black children will never go to.
Furthermore, even if we see drop out rates lower significantly because of these Africentric schools, Africentric schools will still keep their bad reputation because African-Canadians still remain as a minority, and we don't know what goes on in Africentric schools. We still don't clearly know the widely publicized private schools and their inner systems.
The solution is not to open up a new school, because we can avoid it. We can introduce the aforementioned Saturday school programs, or even change the history curriculum to include histories of racial groups involved: the Natives' view, the Blacks' view, the Chinese view, the Korean view, etc. Instead of always only teaching the "White" view of history, we can teach children about all the different views.
Moreover, we can have separate courses in high school for these, such as: "The European Perspective: 20th century Canada", "The Aboriginal Perspective: 20th century Canada", "The ... Perspective: 20th century Canada", and so forth. If that is even too much work, then just have a little brief history from each perspective entailed in the elementary school and high school history curriculum. Universities are already splitting the courses based on perspective, as I have put in an example in the above paragraph. We don't need an entirely new type of school. We
need a better curriculum.
I also have to agree with Courtney Betty, who is a lawyer for the mother of C.W. Jeffreys. She says that this is all a mirage: the education board hasn't really done anything, but by implementing Africentric schools, it will look like they have done something. What they have really done is made a short cut for kids who are part of that drop out rate so they can lower it and make Toronto look like a better place.
Once again, there is no clear-cut remedy, but if we want to help our children learn about their culture (if this is the real reason for Africentric schools), then have the parents teach them about their heritage, or send them to heritage classes and heritage school, which do exist in a multiculturally diverse setting such as Toronto. If the schools were opened to lower the 40% drop out rate among African-Canadians, then have remedial programs implemented in the school instead of opening a new school "for the dumb", harshly put.
Africentric schools can only provide short-term success. The education board should not only look for ways to carry them to the next election, but they should (and we should also) look for long-term solutions that can significantly lower the drop out rate, not by supplying an "alternative school". These children are not leftovers, but we are treating them like they are. The core of the problem is not what the material is, but how it is taught. We need to re-educate our teachers and our future teachers on effective and efficient teaching.
Next post: high school counselors receive poor ratings for helping students with college decisions.
Not really.
What we are currently doing is taking apart the work done by the people who fought for unsegregated schools in the 60s. People died in that reform, lost their careers, some even their families. Now we are passing a bill saying, "Let's open a Black school where students are Black and the staff are also Black so we can learn about Black culture and Black history."
I have nothing against learning different cultures; it provides a new set of perspectives in life, but to pass a bill and establish a school using taxpayer money? Most taxpayers aren't even Black, and what if we don't support Africentric schools because of some issues?
Some people believe that by performing "affirmative action", we are eliminating racism because racism is renowned for discriminating others and putting our race as superior over the others. However, I have never seen the point of affirmative action because it is only a different name for
racism. Supporters of affirmative action say that it just highlights the discriminated race without discriminating other races. That's fine, but in this case it's going to raise some issues, partly because it's intertwined in the legal system. We open the Africentric schools because we want to focus on Black history and its role in Canadian history, but what about other groups who were also involved in Canadian history, such as the Chinese (and the opium case), or the Natives. Should we also open an Aboriginal school for them to specifically learn their history?
The following issues will discuss about the role of Africentric schools in Education.
Africentric schools are only around the elementary level. They may learn about their Black history and culture, but what do they do after grade 8? Presently, high schools are not Africentric, nor do they cover much of Black history. When they graduate the post-elementary institutions will remove their focus away from Black history. To emphasize the importance of Black history in schools, implementing only Africentric elementary schools will not go far because there are no later institutions which can reinforce the importance of Black history, hence the effort and intentions of Africentric schools go to waste. Not only does the emphasis of Black history become lost in the later years, but the standards would most likely be different than "normal" elementary schools because the purpose of Africentric schools is to decrease the ridiculously high 40% drop out rate. How else do we lower the drop out rate other than lowering our standards so many more students are passing? Lying to ourselves and dumbing down the curriculum (similar to my post of "Dumbing it down for the dumb") will not work, and it will only produce non-functional citizens into our already not-so-productive society.
As a poor rebuttal from one of the Trustees who voted in favour of Africentric schools, Donna Harrow states that "No one ever said little white cihldren couldn't come to this school." This is a poor defense, to say the least, because the Africentric school has already gained a bad reputation in the bill. It's true that nobody is rejecting white children as students, but they would reject teachers who do not have enough "African" percentage in their ancestry, so they are prohibited to teach in an Africentric school.
As I have stated earlier in this post, should we also open schools for the Latino/Latina students who are also suffering a high drop out rate? And how about other groups who want to have their culture emphasized as well? Currently, there are Saturday school credit programs (meaning these courses count towards your high school credits) which do teach culture and history of a certain ethnic group, such as Chinese (both Cantonese and Mandarin), Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Urdu, Punjabi, Swahili, and many more languages. We don't need to open up a new school with a new curriculum to teach. If these Saturday school programs were more publicized in the school system and more known to teachers, then we don't need to spend non-Black taxpayer money building a Black school which their non-Black children will never go to.
Furthermore, even if we see drop out rates lower significantly because of these Africentric schools, Africentric schools will still keep their bad reputation because African-Canadians still remain as a minority, and we don't know what goes on in Africentric schools. We still don't clearly know the widely publicized private schools and their inner systems.
The solution is not to open up a new school, because we can avoid it. We can introduce the aforementioned Saturday school programs, or even change the history curriculum to include histories of racial groups involved: the Natives' view, the Blacks' view, the Chinese view, the Korean view, etc. Instead of always only teaching the "White" view of history, we can teach children about all the different views.
Moreover, we can have separate courses in high school for these, such as: "The European Perspective: 20th century Canada", "The Aboriginal Perspective: 20th century Canada", "The ... Perspective: 20th century Canada", and so forth. If that is even too much work, then just have a little brief history from each perspective entailed in the elementary school and high school history curriculum. Universities are already splitting the courses based on perspective, as I have put in an example in the above paragraph. We don't need an entirely new type of school. We
need a better curriculum.
I also have to agree with Courtney Betty, who is a lawyer for the mother of C.W. Jeffreys. She says that this is all a mirage: the education board hasn't really done anything, but by implementing Africentric schools, it will look like they have done something. What they have really done is made a short cut for kids who are part of that drop out rate so they can lower it and make Toronto look like a better place.
Once again, there is no clear-cut remedy, but if we want to help our children learn about their culture (if this is the real reason for Africentric schools), then have the parents teach them about their heritage, or send them to heritage classes and heritage school, which do exist in a multiculturally diverse setting such as Toronto. If the schools were opened to lower the 40% drop out rate among African-Canadians, then have remedial programs implemented in the school instead of opening a new school "for the dumb", harshly put.
Africentric schools can only provide short-term success. The education board should not only look for ways to carry them to the next election, but they should (and we should also) look for long-term solutions that can significantly lower the drop out rate, not by supplying an "alternative school". These children are not leftovers, but we are treating them like they are. The core of the problem is not what the material is, but how it is taught. We need to re-educate our teachers and our future teachers on effective and efficient teaching.
Next post: high school counselors receive poor ratings for helping students with college decisions.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Dumbing it down for the dumb
There's going to be a revised curriculum for elementary school, I think mainly the primary grades. Not only are students complaining about the "unreasonably high" load of homework given to them, but parents and teachers are also filing complaints. The whiners are also saying that the material is becoming too difficult for the students' brains, which have not developed the mental capacity needed to grasp the learning content yet. Hence, the curriculum is sent to the gallows for some quick cuts, and the provincial standard for math is lowered (math is just one of the main subjects that are being chopped crudely, but other subjects are also under fire).
Of course, the Asian parents (pardon the stereotype) and also some Caucasian ones are against this new curriculum. One Asian parent commented that right now, her daughter is in grade 8 and doing the same level of math as a third grader is doing in China. That's pretty embarrassing. Some Caucasian parents don't see anything wrong with the old curriculum, and inquire for the core reason of changing it. They've handled the math and their teachers taught them well, and there was nothing wrong then. The only thing that is different between now and then is possible human evolution, but certainly our children can't be moving backwards on the evolution chain.
It's ridiculous that they have to change the curriculum. It is completely untrue that the children cannot grasp such mathematical (or otherwise) concepts. I have lived through my primary grades and came out perfectly intact: no emotional turmoil, no psychological scarring, no physical harm. Then again, I was enrolled in a Saturday school program in which the subjects taught at said centre were half a year in advance compared to ordinary school because even the slowest (aka me) would take only half a year to absorb the content. By the time we need to use it in normal school, we would have already understood the topic in and out.
We have to keep in mind that there are people who have survived said harsh primary grades without any outside help, so really there is no good reason to revise the curriculum.
Assuming that the future generation is not evolving backwardly, and that their brains should be even more advanced than ours, the core of the problem is not that the material is too hard. If it seems so, then have the teachers do their job properly: teach the students until they learn it. I'm aiming to be a teacher myself, and I believe that one of the foundations of being a teacher is to make sure your student understands the material. Teachers who complain that the material is too hard for their students are only looking for an easy way out. Parents should not be complaining at all; if they think it is too difficult, then most likely their own education has eroded.
Canada is only the 5th top country for best-ranked education. Kudos to us for being in the top 5, but we shouldn't stop there. If we water down our curriculum, the kids are going to be even less prepared to enter high school, and the stress will carry them throughout high school until senior year, and into university. First year university/college drop out rates and high school drop out rates are still unfavourably high, and toning down the curriculum will not make it better. Additional consequences include a drop in our ranking. Less visa students, and our global reputation is slowly destroyed. I'm not an Econ major, but our economy could deteriorate.
The solution is to have schools or school districts to hold remedial programs, peer tutor programs, or have teachers offer extra help outside of their school time. Teachers' job hours aren't the regular 9-3. Being a teacher requires you to bring out your compassionate side to connect with the students.
In conclusion, dumbing it down for the dumb will not work. This can (and probably will) ruin our global reputation, take away the appeal from our country as an educated developed country and render our future generations incapable of being able to work in international settings.
Next post: Africentric schools
Of course, the Asian parents (pardon the stereotype) and also some Caucasian ones are against this new curriculum. One Asian parent commented that right now, her daughter is in grade 8 and doing the same level of math as a third grader is doing in China. That's pretty embarrassing. Some Caucasian parents don't see anything wrong with the old curriculum, and inquire for the core reason of changing it. They've handled the math and their teachers taught them well, and there was nothing wrong then. The only thing that is different between now and then is possible human evolution, but certainly our children can't be moving backwards on the evolution chain.
It's ridiculous that they have to change the curriculum. It is completely untrue that the children cannot grasp such mathematical (or otherwise) concepts. I have lived through my primary grades and came out perfectly intact: no emotional turmoil, no psychological scarring, no physical harm. Then again, I was enrolled in a Saturday school program in which the subjects taught at said centre were half a year in advance compared to ordinary school because even the slowest (aka me) would take only half a year to absorb the content. By the time we need to use it in normal school, we would have already understood the topic in and out.
We have to keep in mind that there are people who have survived said harsh primary grades without any outside help, so really there is no good reason to revise the curriculum.
Assuming that the future generation is not evolving backwardly, and that their brains should be even more advanced than ours, the core of the problem is not that the material is too hard. If it seems so, then have the teachers do their job properly: teach the students until they learn it. I'm aiming to be a teacher myself, and I believe that one of the foundations of being a teacher is to make sure your student understands the material. Teachers who complain that the material is too hard for their students are only looking for an easy way out. Parents should not be complaining at all; if they think it is too difficult, then most likely their own education has eroded.
Canada is only the 5th top country for best-ranked education. Kudos to us for being in the top 5, but we shouldn't stop there. If we water down our curriculum, the kids are going to be even less prepared to enter high school, and the stress will carry them throughout high school until senior year, and into university. First year university/college drop out rates and high school drop out rates are still unfavourably high, and toning down the curriculum will not make it better. Additional consequences include a drop in our ranking. Less visa students, and our global reputation is slowly destroyed. I'm not an Econ major, but our economy could deteriorate.
The solution is to have schools or school districts to hold remedial programs, peer tutor programs, or have teachers offer extra help outside of their school time. Teachers' job hours aren't the regular 9-3. Being a teacher requires you to bring out your compassionate side to connect with the students.
In conclusion, dumbing it down for the dumb will not work. This can (and probably will) ruin our global reputation, take away the appeal from our country as an educated developed country and render our future generations incapable of being able to work in international settings.
Next post: Africentric schools
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Obama's "socialism"
I'm playing the Devil's advocate here, but why is everyone so against Obama's health care reform? I love how the people who are against the reform are saying all like, "omg it's so socialist!" What the hell guys, this is not socialism. I know, I know, some people say that by having the state able to control a major institution like the hospital and such, we'll be too dependent and stuff on Obama, and he could break us in half if he wanted to.
Really guys? Really? |: What he's doing right now is erasing the economic barrier for getting the health care humans need to survive. Is providing vital necessities so socialist? Should I take away your food and water too, because providing them would be too socialist? The society has gone so deep into capitalism that it's pretty dang stupid to consider any type of fairness as socialist. Yes, it's true that Soviet Russia failed miserably, but this doesn't mean America's going to be like that.
Yeah so the major corporations like IBM and Microsoft will lose more than a few bucks funding the poor folk's health care. What is a couple million going to seem like for IBM? Then people are going to complain about how the plain folk (aka us) are going to be digging from the graves of our wallets to fund for such poor folk. You know, this could be remedied quite easily if a new tax law was in place according to the incomes of individuals (and companies) instead of just putting a state-wide tax law that kills the lower folk.
We're in 2010, and we're depriving people of their vital needs because they don't have enough money. Doesn't this sound absurd and, might I say, morally wrong? Using money to determine the value of a life: what type of message is that going to send to the future generation?
PS. I'm Canadian. I love my health care. I'm a normal citizen. I've heard of stories where Americans broke their legs and that's $30k down the drain. In Ontario? The health care covers it. So yeah tease us about our igloos, but at least we'll be treated for hypothermia for free rather than sleeping on streets with frost bite on our noses.
I may be studying sociology, but really, it only takes one and a half brain cells to figure out that Obama is not trying to steal rights from citizens. He's trying to give them opportunities. Placing a price on health, rather, is taking away the right to life. Some food for thought.
My next post might be about the Afrocentric schools or the newly introduced watered-down curriculum.
The new grading system
So I haven't written in this thing for a while. I'm still aiming to adopt some sort of theme for this so people might actually read this and subscribe. I'm not so sure I want to follow astrology as I want to follow on current events. I think current events would be more interesting, so I shall do that instead.
In the meantime, I just want to introduce anyone-who's-reading-this to schmoyoho, a Youtube user who (along with several others) compose ATTNs: AutoTune The News. It's a mix of politics (and sometimes news) with humour, autotuning their speeches and adding their own flair to things. Their newest ATTN (which is the 11th) is here but it isn't the best. Visit schmoyoho for more of their ATTNs!
_________________________________
So the current thing I want to talk about today is the new grading system for elementary school (grades 1 to 8). Instead of the regular A/B/C/D/R system we've all been accustomed to, and not to mention, know the meanings of off by heart, they decided to change it to:
- PWD = Progressing with Difficulty
- PW = Progressing Well
- PVW = Progressing very Well
They say that this maps out the students' progress more accurately instead of just comparing them to other students.
As a rebuttal, who ever said we're comparing to other students? The ABC system is compared to the provincial standard, not seeing if Johnny gets 7/10 and has the most correct questions, then he gets an A. No, we're supposed to match the students' progress and achievements to the provincial standard. If they meet them, then they can be functional citizens in our society. If they can't, then there should be remedial help provided because that is what schools and teachers are supposed to do.
Another argument is saying that it will hurt the feelings of the students knowing they achieved a C or below. I guess this is understandable for grades 3 and lower, but for grade 8? Is this necessary? They'll be using the ABC system in high school and university; should we change the grading systems in those educational institutions as well? Students need to learn how to handle with such situations when they are young so they don't become "traumatized" later. Besides, if the pain hits later, that'll plunge them into further despair and confusion because they would not have ever confronted that situation before. Sugar-coating would only cripple future students. Ludicrous.
Even with the current grading system, many first year students drop out of university or college because they feel that high school has left them unprepared. Our no-fail policy further enunciates this problem: pass the students and they're out of our hair, we match the provincial quota, we get our paycheques, we move on with life. Money is certainly important, and pass rates are important too (which is why the Afrocentric schools have been built in the first place, yes?) but we need to be concerned about what these students are absorbing into their brains. We should be getting to the core of the problem: why are drop out rates so high? Why do students feel unprepared going to post-secondary institutions? Why are they not meeting the provincial standard?
Supporters of the PWD/PW/PVW system also claim that teachers can write comments about homework completion, participation, etc in a comment area. Not sure if any one has brought this up in the board meetings, but there was already a comment area for teachers to write about said topics. There was even a checklist that listed these topics and the students' positions: NI (needs improvement), S (satisfactory), G (good) and E (excellent). So why this new system?
Finally, these special fancy words don't hide anything. Everyone already knows that PWD is a C or below, PW is most likely a B, and PVW is an A and above. If everyone already knows the meanings behind these words, there is really no point in conjuring up an entire new system to be taught at Teacher's College. Similar to this education-changing event and the knowledge of its predecessor, Ryerson University is still considered a college at best by most. Names don't matter. It's the meaning behind them. Shakespeare was right when wrote that a rose would smell just as sweet by any other name. Skunk, feces, gonorrhea, diarrhea, vomit, etc as a name for said flower would not change its scent, its appearance, its colour or any of its properties at all. A name is just a name. There is absolutely no point to sugar-coat the problem for the students, and thus no point to concocting some brand new sparkly potion to cure our drop rates and slight depressions of receiving a C.
Really guys. Do you think the CEO of IBM will sugar-coat your letter of being fired? I don't think so. The real world is tough. It's mean. It's scary. It can scar you. Driving can cause deaths, but we teach students defensive maneuvers. This method of sugar-coating is not defensive: it's crippling. If kids are supposed to be our future, then we will definitely have a gloomy, depressive future, lost on how to handle bad situations.
Our world will, to say the least, be going to hell.
In the meantime, I just want to introduce anyone-who's-reading-this to schmoyoho, a Youtube user who (along with several others) compose ATTNs: AutoTune The News. It's a mix of politics (and sometimes news) with humour, autotuning their speeches and adding their own flair to things. Their newest ATTN (which is the 11th) is here but it isn't the best. Visit schmoyoho for more of their ATTNs!
_________________________________
So the current thing I want to talk about today is the new grading system for elementary school (grades 1 to 8). Instead of the regular A/B/C/D/R system we've all been accustomed to, and not to mention, know the meanings of off by heart, they decided to change it to:
- PWD = Progressing with Difficulty
- PW = Progressing Well
- PVW = Progressing very Well
They say that this maps out the students' progress more accurately instead of just comparing them to other students.
As a rebuttal, who ever said we're comparing to other students? The ABC system is compared to the provincial standard, not seeing if Johnny gets 7/10 and has the most correct questions, then he gets an A. No, we're supposed to match the students' progress and achievements to the provincial standard. If they meet them, then they can be functional citizens in our society. If they can't, then there should be remedial help provided because that is what schools and teachers are supposed to do.
Another argument is saying that it will hurt the feelings of the students knowing they achieved a C or below. I guess this is understandable for grades 3 and lower, but for grade 8? Is this necessary? They'll be using the ABC system in high school and university; should we change the grading systems in those educational institutions as well? Students need to learn how to handle with such situations when they are young so they don't become "traumatized" later. Besides, if the pain hits later, that'll plunge them into further despair and confusion because they would not have ever confronted that situation before. Sugar-coating would only cripple future students. Ludicrous.
Even with the current grading system, many first year students drop out of university or college because they feel that high school has left them unprepared. Our no-fail policy further enunciates this problem: pass the students and they're out of our hair, we match the provincial quota, we get our paycheques, we move on with life. Money is certainly important, and pass rates are important too (which is why the Afrocentric schools have been built in the first place, yes?) but we need to be concerned about what these students are absorbing into their brains. We should be getting to the core of the problem: why are drop out rates so high? Why do students feel unprepared going to post-secondary institutions? Why are they not meeting the provincial standard?
Supporters of the PWD/PW/PVW system also claim that teachers can write comments about homework completion, participation, etc in a comment area. Not sure if any one has brought this up in the board meetings, but there was already a comment area for teachers to write about said topics. There was even a checklist that listed these topics and the students' positions: NI (needs improvement), S (satisfactory), G (good) and E (excellent). So why this new system?
Finally, these special fancy words don't hide anything. Everyone already knows that PWD is a C or below, PW is most likely a B, and PVW is an A and above. If everyone already knows the meanings behind these words, there is really no point in conjuring up an entire new system to be taught at Teacher's College. Similar to this education-changing event and the knowledge of its predecessor, Ryerson University is still considered a college at best by most. Names don't matter. It's the meaning behind them. Shakespeare was right when wrote that a rose would smell just as sweet by any other name. Skunk, feces, gonorrhea, diarrhea, vomit, etc as a name for said flower would not change its scent, its appearance, its colour or any of its properties at all. A name is just a name. There is absolutely no point to sugar-coat the problem for the students, and thus no point to concocting some brand new sparkly potion to cure our drop rates and slight depressions of receiving a C.
Really guys. Do you think the CEO of IBM will sugar-coat your letter of being fired? I don't think so. The real world is tough. It's mean. It's scary. It can scar you. Driving can cause deaths, but we teach students defensive maneuvers. This method of sugar-coating is not defensive: it's crippling. If kids are supposed to be our future, then we will definitely have a gloomy, depressive future, lost on how to handle bad situations.
Our world will, to say the least, be going to hell.
Friday, April 2, 2010
First day of driver's ed.
It was really scary. D:
Who knew that cars would have a delay reaction of 0.4 seconds? ._. As a result of being blunt to this, either the car was a heat missile when I pressed the gas pedal, or it experienced its first wave of sugar wearing off when I pressed the brake. I finally got a hold of this wild thing, and so turning wasn't as rocky as it was in the first 10 minutes. So yeah a tip for the future: press lightly and gradually on the pedals!
Turning took a while to get used to because it was absolutely not the same as turning while you're walking. I had to do extravagantly excessive motions of wrenching the wheel in the right direction 180 to 270 degrees, then whip it back to normal because I keep forgetting to let it rotate itself after I've entered the curve. So yeah, I almost crashed into the curb and an oncoming car D: Tip for the future? Keep the excessive, but remember to let the wheel rotate, and also slow down to 20km/h when turning.
It was like the world decided to hate me today. There were so many people out: bikers, tiny toddler bikers, strollers, families (in duck formation), and the worst: guys playing street hockey in the middle of the street! The last one really freaked me out because it was like, "How do I maneuver around that?" but I eventually did it anyway with the help of the instructor. I know it's Good Friday, but c'mon guys, I'm trying to sustain my clean driver's record.
So yeah all in all, today was pretty scary. In summary, I almost crashed into a car, and turning left was horrifying, to say the least. Luckily I was only driving in the neighbourhood, so it wasn't like the Glendon intersection where a one-way splits into two, and a two merges into a one. I had to drive around the school area, so yeahhhh a whole ton of children.
My mom wanted to book Monday for driving as well. ):
But that isn't the worst thing.
I have to drive at 10:30 in the morning tomorrow! I hope I'll be awake and alert enough. D:
Who knew that cars would have a delay reaction of 0.4 seconds? ._. As a result of being blunt to this, either the car was a heat missile when I pressed the gas pedal, or it experienced its first wave of sugar wearing off when I pressed the brake. I finally got a hold of this wild thing, and so turning wasn't as rocky as it was in the first 10 minutes. So yeah a tip for the future: press lightly and gradually on the pedals!
Turning took a while to get used to because it was absolutely not the same as turning while you're walking. I had to do extravagantly excessive motions of wrenching the wheel in the right direction 180 to 270 degrees, then whip it back to normal because I keep forgetting to let it rotate itself after I've entered the curve. So yeah, I almost crashed into the curb and an oncoming car D: Tip for the future? Keep the excessive, but remember to let the wheel rotate, and also slow down to 20km/h when turning.
It was like the world decided to hate me today. There were so many people out: bikers, tiny toddler bikers, strollers, families (in duck formation), and the worst: guys playing street hockey in the middle of the street! The last one really freaked me out because it was like, "How do I maneuver around that?" but I eventually did it anyway with the help of the instructor. I know it's Good Friday, but c'mon guys, I'm trying to sustain my clean driver's record.
So yeah all in all, today was pretty scary. In summary, I almost crashed into a car, and turning left was horrifying, to say the least. Luckily I was only driving in the neighbourhood, so it wasn't like the Glendon intersection where a one-way splits into two, and a two merges into a one. I had to drive around the school area, so yeahhhh a whole ton of children.
My mom wanted to book Monday for driving as well. ):
But that isn't the worst thing.
I have to drive at 10:30 in the morning tomorrow! I hope I'll be awake and alert enough. D:
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Free at last! (but not really) D:
Today was my last day in my school year. I am officially done my first university year: 2009-2010! I'm so happy. I'm actually a second year student now, which means I really should be more mature, but that probably won't happen anytime soon! Unfortunately, I have summer school: Children's Literature and Critical Thinking. Children's Lit will be fun for sure: I've read over 70% of the books on the textbook list, so it should be a piece of cake. Critical thinking: not so much. A few friends took it and they said it was most likely the most horrible course they have ever taken. I hope it isn't really as terrible as they say it is, or else I have just drained my entire summer ):
Anyway, I'm not really free, because tomorrow will be my first day in driver's education. Hopefully I won't crash into anything. Mom says my driving skills should be as good as hers, but who's to know? My dad can't really drive because it's always like a spastic horse when he drives, but with mom it's good, and so I'll be stuck in the 50/50 mark. At least this whole driving school thing ends around May-ish, so it won't interfere much with my summer school courses, which end on July 30, and the exams run 'til mid-August. D:
I'm just really glad that I chose this campus in this school (for the program I want). Of course, today I met a real campus-er, and it was rather disturbing. My sweater was zipped up to just above my stomach, and underneath is a t-shirt. So this guy who's a friend of a group member came, we talked (all of us), and he reached over trying to like, open my sweater and pulling it down past my shoulders to "see the t-shirt design". Yeah it was just really weird. I guess the rep with my school stays as strong as ever. ):
Aside from that awkward experience of today, I really loved my first year (despite le français, bien sûr!) Perhaps I should try and write a post completely in French just to test out how well I've improved (if any, haha). Alors, je suis très heureuse parce que j'ai mis quelques bonnes personnes qui deviennent mes amis plus tard. Beaucoup de ces personnes sont dans la programme de sociologie qui est ma majeure aussi! Après quelques mois, j'ai l'idée que les personnes dans la programme de sociologie sont les plus gentil(le)s.
Okay I think that's enough French for now. Anyway, I can't wait for driver's ed, but I wish my mom didn't book the day right after my sentence ended. D:
Anyway, I'm not really free, because tomorrow will be my first day in driver's education. Hopefully I won't crash into anything. Mom says my driving skills should be as good as hers, but who's to know? My dad can't really drive because it's always like a spastic horse when he drives, but with mom it's good, and so I'll be stuck in the 50/50 mark. At least this whole driving school thing ends around May-ish, so it won't interfere much with my summer school courses, which end on July 30, and the exams run 'til mid-August. D:
I'm just really glad that I chose this campus in this school (for the program I want). Of course, today I met a real campus-er, and it was rather disturbing. My sweater was zipped up to just above my stomach, and underneath is a t-shirt. So this guy who's a friend of a group member came, we talked (all of us), and he reached over trying to like, open my sweater and pulling it down past my shoulders to "see the t-shirt design". Yeah it was just really weird. I guess the rep with my school stays as strong as ever. ):
Aside from that awkward experience of today, I really loved my first year (despite le français, bien sûr!) Perhaps I should try and write a post completely in French just to test out how well I've improved (if any, haha). Alors, je suis très heureuse parce que j'ai mis quelques bonnes personnes qui deviennent mes amis plus tard. Beaucoup de ces personnes sont dans la programme de sociologie qui est ma majeure aussi! Après quelques mois, j'ai l'idée que les personnes dans la programme de sociologie sont les plus gentil(le)s.
Okay I think that's enough French for now. Anyway, I can't wait for driver's ed, but I wish my mom didn't book the day right after my sentence ended. D:
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Cravin' for gamin' (and Palin is failin')
"Second" day in this chapter of my life, and I have decided not to import my dA stuff here. I've re-read some of the stuff I wrote, and some of it was pretty sappy or crappy or just blah. D:
As my short bio described, I like MMOs, but I would never call myself a hardcore or intense gamer. In fact, I don't think I even qualify as a gamer because I'm so tech-blond that I would disgrace the epic title of "gamer". Besides, I don't play any intense games like L4D, TF, AC, MW or even COD (which apparently turns on some guys, for some reason. I guess they're just looking for a gaming partner). Heck, I don't even play FF. And I'm a girl. Yeah that's right.
Anyway! Let's get to the nitty-gritty before a shiny penny decides to roll your way. I've recently re-discovered NosTale, which is an online 3D MMO (I think). Either way, it looks very cute, and the gameplay is rather simple, which is the way I like it. I'm not one for RTS or FPS because a game is supposed to be enjoyed, and I don't enjoy much thinking (here I sound like a blond haha), and I have horrible aim even with a mouse so FPS is out of the question (even though I can draw straight lines on MSN). For games, my criteria are simple: cute/appealing/colourful graphics, not too hardcore on my poor toddler (it'll be 5 or 6 years old this summer!) computer, doesn't require much brain work (but still requires some), doesn't have an extravagantly complex storyline, not too popular or else it will be extremely laggy, and it must not be pay-to-play. PVP is optional, I guess, if none of the classes are overpowered like those in Dragonica. I was rather impressed with Wonder King's PVP feature because it made sure the classes were more or less equal in the battlefield. Boosted HP/MP, unavailability to use your own potions, and a big enough field so an AoE skill can't be spammed all the time until your HP goes into the negatives.
So yeah I'm hoping to play NosTale in the summer. I'm downloading it right now at an extremely slow rate at 260KB/s, so excuse my lag D: I hope to make some new friends on this MMO because in the previous ones, I've really only stayed in one or two circles of friends, so a change could be nice. Of course, I still love my old friends (:
_______________________
So what's next on the list?
I have actually already used the title "Palin is failin'" on another "blog" (if you can call it that) describing how her words are lies and the like. But recently, I have uncovered a bit of old news, dating back to September 4, 2008. Anne Kilhenny, a regular housewife not belonging to any specific organization or job, has written a letter to the public exposing Sarah's incompatibility with people, incapability to govern a state + to mayor a city (hence politics is definitely not for her). The letter also outlines her failures at attempting to do the aforementioned duties. This letter was actually hyperlinked to the article about her daughter, Willow Palin, being the leader of the destruction of a house due to reckless partying.
Oh, Palins, when do you learn?
_______________________
So yes. That's my little day in a bundle. Oh yeah, I have a French exam tomorrow and I got a free bus ride back home today! Yay for SOME luck. Only to be countered by my wrong interpretation of a poem and the fact that I forgot my stuff at the campus while I was at the OTHER (main) campus D:
This proves that sleep deprivation is not good for you.
As my short bio described, I like MMOs, but I would never call myself a hardcore or intense gamer. In fact, I don't think I even qualify as a gamer because I'm so tech-blond that I would disgrace the epic title of "gamer". Besides, I don't play any intense games like L4D, TF, AC, MW or even COD (which apparently turns on some guys, for some reason. I guess they're just looking for a gaming partner). Heck, I don't even play FF. And I'm a girl. Yeah that's right.
Anyway! Let's get to the nitty-gritty before a shiny penny decides to roll your way. I've recently re-discovered NosTale, which is an online 3D MMO (I think). Either way, it looks very cute, and the gameplay is rather simple, which is the way I like it. I'm not one for RTS or FPS because a game is supposed to be enjoyed, and I don't enjoy much thinking (here I sound like a blond haha), and I have horrible aim even with a mouse so FPS is out of the question (even though I can draw straight lines on MSN). For games, my criteria are simple: cute/appealing/colourful graphics, not too hardcore on my poor toddler (it'll be 5 or 6 years old this summer!) computer, doesn't require much brain work (but still requires some), doesn't have an extravagantly complex storyline, not too popular or else it will be extremely laggy, and it must not be pay-to-play. PVP is optional, I guess, if none of the classes are overpowered like those in Dragonica. I was rather impressed with Wonder King's PVP feature because it made sure the classes were more or less equal in the battlefield. Boosted HP/MP, unavailability to use your own potions, and a big enough field so an AoE skill can't be spammed all the time until your HP goes into the negatives.
So yeah I'm hoping to play NosTale in the summer. I'm downloading it right now at an extremely slow rate at 260KB/s, so excuse my lag D: I hope to make some new friends on this MMO because in the previous ones, I've really only stayed in one or two circles of friends, so a change could be nice. Of course, I still love my old friends (:
_______________________
So what's next on the list?
I have actually already used the title "Palin is failin'" on another "blog" (if you can call it that) describing how her words are lies and the like. But recently, I have uncovered a bit of old news, dating back to September 4, 2008. Anne Kilhenny, a regular housewife not belonging to any specific organization or job, has written a letter to the public exposing Sarah's incompatibility with people, incapability to govern a state + to mayor a city (hence politics is definitely not for her). The letter also outlines her failures at attempting to do the aforementioned duties. This letter was actually hyperlinked to the article about her daughter, Willow Palin, being the leader of the destruction of a house due to reckless partying.
Oh, Palins, when do you learn?
_______________________
So yes. That's my little day in a bundle. Oh yeah, I have a French exam tomorrow and I got a free bus ride back home today! Yay for SOME luck. Only to be countered by my wrong interpretation of a poem and the fact that I forgot my stuff at the campus while I was at the OTHER (main) campus D:
This proves that sleep deprivation is not good for you.
Procrastination at its best
Ick >:
So it's 2:27am currently, and I'm not sleeping nor am I cramming like I said I was going to. Instead, I decided to make a blogger account, which could possibly be the worst thing to do right now.
I'll upload my dA stuff here later (in the day), since I'm really supposed to be cramming.
I've no idea what this blog would be used for, but I guess it'll be for rants and random tidbits of my totally awsm life.
Farewell for now, m'dears. :D
So it's 2:27am currently, and I'm not sleeping nor am I cramming like I said I was going to. Instead, I decided to make a blogger account, which could possibly be the worst thing to do right now.
I'll upload my dA stuff here later (in the day), since I'm really supposed to be cramming.
I've no idea what this blog would be used for, but I guess it'll be for rants and random tidbits of my totally awsm life.
Farewell for now, m'dears. :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
