Well, ladies and gentlemen, it has been a long quarter. I enjoyed the first half of AP Comp, but I can't say that I really enjoyed the second half. (No offense, Kunkle). I just felt like the stuff we did in the first half was much more interesting, there was a greater variety of reading materials and everything we read was (in general) way more entertaining. I actually didn't mind Gatsby, but I definitely hated PITD. It was incredibly dull, and not a fun read. Nothing in comparison to TTTC.
I do think I have learned a lot about different rhetorical strategies and such, but whether or not I will actually use them (or know how to use them) is a whole different story. On the whole, I'm not sure how much my writing improved. I know it improved from first quarter, but I don't know that I would say that it improved over this past quarter. I felt like all the stuff I wrote was complete crap-- I really had no idea what to write for most of the assignments...thus, my writing was not very good.
Anyway, fair well fellow AP Compquistadors! Only about two and a half months until graduation! WOO!
Friday, March 26, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
"Politics" by Peter Saul
At the Apple Pie Exhibit at MMOCA, one of the paintings that caught my eye was "Politics" by Peter Saul. The painting is of former President Ronald Reagan. He's holding the globe in his hands, but it is all squished and deformed. There is also a saw going through his head, as well as a missile coming through the other side of his head. All over on his body are little tags saying different things. Some of them say "power" "money" "Cuba" "hot line" and "art."
What I think the painting was trying to illustrate was the turmoil and the problems that were occurring during the time of Reagan's presidency. I'm not entirely sure whether or not this was supposed to be a dig at Reagan as a president or not, it easily could have been I suppose. The way he was holding the deformed, squished "world" in his hands said to me that that was what the world had become during his presidency: deformed. Also, the missile going through his head was probably due to the tensions surrounding nuclear weapons at the time as well.
Relating this to Morrison and Playing In The Dark, it is rather ironic that the person that has the most power and essentially "holds the world in his hands" in our country was white. If you look at that painting through the eyes of a black person, what would you think? Would you be bitter or would you not really care, because that's the way it's been all along? It's an interesting question to ponder. In addition, Morrison talked in the last chapter about how Africanists were part of the reason that white people got so much power, which would also make sense with this painting.
What I think the painting was trying to illustrate was the turmoil and the problems that were occurring during the time of Reagan's presidency. I'm not entirely sure whether or not this was supposed to be a dig at Reagan as a president or not, it easily could have been I suppose. The way he was holding the deformed, squished "world" in his hands said to me that that was what the world had become during his presidency: deformed. Also, the missile going through his head was probably due to the tensions surrounding nuclear weapons at the time as well.
Relating this to Morrison and Playing In The Dark, it is rather ironic that the person that has the most power and essentially "holds the world in his hands" in our country was white. If you look at that painting through the eyes of a black person, what would you think? Would you be bitter or would you not really care, because that's the way it's been all along? It's an interesting question to ponder. In addition, Morrison talked in the last chapter about how Africanists were part of the reason that white people got so much power, which would also make sense with this painting.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Space Exploration
So, a timed writing on space exploration, that was definitely a new topic. I thought it was kind of interesting compared to everything else we've had to write about for those so far. Anyway, here are my thoughts on space exploration.
The main concern with space exploration is obviously funding. With our country in the worst economic recession for decades, can we really afford to take our precious dollars and spend them on space exploration? I don't think so. Yes, maybe someday space exploration will lead us to some sort of discovery, but from what we've seen so far, it doesn't look like that will happen anytime soon. Everything about space is so unknown, when will it ever pay off?
Another thing that this got me thinking about was whether or not space exploration is worthwhile. One of the sources mentioned that astronauts could come back from space carrying new diseases that we've never been introduced to thus far. What could this do to our country? In the midst of our economic crisis we would have to face a medical crisis as well? That doesn't sound like a very good option to me...
I don't know where I'm going with this. I guess overall I just think that there are so many other things we should be spending our money on, especially because of the recession, and it doesn't seem worth it to spend $17 billion (according to the timed writing documents) on space exploration.
The main concern with space exploration is obviously funding. With our country in the worst economic recession for decades, can we really afford to take our precious dollars and spend them on space exploration? I don't think so. Yes, maybe someday space exploration will lead us to some sort of discovery, but from what we've seen so far, it doesn't look like that will happen anytime soon. Everything about space is so unknown, when will it ever pay off?
Another thing that this got me thinking about was whether or not space exploration is worthwhile. One of the sources mentioned that astronauts could come back from space carrying new diseases that we've never been introduced to thus far. What could this do to our country? In the midst of our economic crisis we would have to face a medical crisis as well? That doesn't sound like a very good option to me...
I don't know where I'm going with this. I guess overall I just think that there are so many other things we should be spending our money on, especially because of the recession, and it doesn't seem worth it to spend $17 billion (according to the timed writing documents) on space exploration.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Declaration of Independence
Seeing as how my Declaration of Independence was so inspirational and somewhat fantastic, I felt the need to post it. I thought it might provide some lonely souls with a few chuckles, and possibly bring light to the world. Again, please don't judge.
AP Composition, February 11, 2010
THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FROM ADVANCED PLACEMENT COMPOSITION AND OTHER ENGLISH COURSES (AND JEFFREY KUNKLE)
When in the course of classroom events, it becomes necessary for one class to dissolve the academic bands which have connected them to Advanced Placement Composition, the inhabitants of said course must declare the causes which led them to desire independence.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all students were not graded equal, that they are not endowed by their professor with certain unalienable rights, are fairness and the pursuit of A’s. That, in order to achieve these rights, the students must impeach said professor and expel themselves from said Advanced Placement course. It is their right and duty to throw off said dictator from power, to improve the lives of those unfortunate souls who shall be faced with said course later. To prove the misdemeanors of said Advanced Placement course, let these facts be submitted to an eager world.
For forcing subjects to engrave countless timed writings into his or her own flesh.
For reciting a myriad of monotonous poems about ludicrous topics such as “gay wallpaper.”
For quartering large numbers of armed teachers among us.
For refusing to fetch the young Gus Kunkle to provide amusement for the pupils.
For bequeathing hours of tedious readings and essays upon the students.
For compelling the students to ponder over the dreadful inscriptions of one Mary Wollstonecraft during the summer hours which were said to belong to the students, not to the professor of the English language.
For ceasing communication and interaction with all other citizens of the world outside of the Advanced Placement Composition courses.
For uttering long, eerie messages on the computer system and requiring the students to listen to said messages in the privacy and safe haven of their own homes.
For refusing to let others speak in the opinions of his nature and the nature in which the Advanced Placement Composition classes are run and administered.
For ensuring that the students never had any free time outside of school; by inflicting upon them the pain of countless hours of repetitive readings, essays, and projects
For causing innocent students to have the desire never to return to a classroom again, even after finally having passed said Advanced Placement course.
For inflicting upon the pupils the torture of completing frequent multiple choice exams, in the hopes that said pupils might pass the Advanced Placement Composition and English exam.
We, therefore, the students of the Advanced Placement Composition class, in GENERAL CLASSROOM assembled, appealing to the supreme Principal of the school for the rectitude of our intentions, DO, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these classes, solemnly PUBLISH and DECLARE, That these united classes are, and of Right, ought to be free and independent pupils; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Advanced Placement Composition course and Professor, and that all political connection between them and the Advanced Placement Composition course, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that, as FREE and INDEPENDENT PUPILS, they have full Power to dismiss homework, demolish essays, omit multiple choice exams, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT PUPILS may of right do. AND for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
I sincerely hope that this declaration has brought a little light to your cloudy world.
AP Composition, February 11, 2010
THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FROM ADVANCED PLACEMENT COMPOSITION AND OTHER ENGLISH COURSES (AND JEFFREY KUNKLE)
When in the course of classroom events, it becomes necessary for one class to dissolve the academic bands which have connected them to Advanced Placement Composition, the inhabitants of said course must declare the causes which led them to desire independence.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all students were not graded equal, that they are not endowed by their professor with certain unalienable rights, are fairness and the pursuit of A’s. That, in order to achieve these rights, the students must impeach said professor and expel themselves from said Advanced Placement course. It is their right and duty to throw off said dictator from power, to improve the lives of those unfortunate souls who shall be faced with said course later. To prove the misdemeanors of said Advanced Placement course, let these facts be submitted to an eager world.
For forcing subjects to engrave countless timed writings into his or her own flesh.
For reciting a myriad of monotonous poems about ludicrous topics such as “gay wallpaper.”
For quartering large numbers of armed teachers among us.
For refusing to fetch the young Gus Kunkle to provide amusement for the pupils.
For bequeathing hours of tedious readings and essays upon the students.
For compelling the students to ponder over the dreadful inscriptions of one Mary Wollstonecraft during the summer hours which were said to belong to the students, not to the professor of the English language.
For ceasing communication and interaction with all other citizens of the world outside of the Advanced Placement Composition courses.
For uttering long, eerie messages on the computer system and requiring the students to listen to said messages in the privacy and safe haven of their own homes.
For refusing to let others speak in the opinions of his nature and the nature in which the Advanced Placement Composition classes are run and administered.
For ensuring that the students never had any free time outside of school; by inflicting upon them the pain of countless hours of repetitive readings, essays, and projects
For causing innocent students to have the desire never to return to a classroom again, even after finally having passed said Advanced Placement course.
For inflicting upon the pupils the torture of completing frequent multiple choice exams, in the hopes that said pupils might pass the Advanced Placement Composition and English exam.
We, therefore, the students of the Advanced Placement Composition class, in GENERAL CLASSROOM assembled, appealing to the supreme Principal of the school for the rectitude of our intentions, DO, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these classes, solemnly PUBLISH and DECLARE, That these united classes are, and of Right, ought to be free and independent pupils; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Advanced Placement Composition course and Professor, and that all political connection between them and the Advanced Placement Composition course, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that, as FREE and INDEPENDENT PUPILS, they have full Power to dismiss homework, demolish essays, omit multiple choice exams, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT PUPILS may of right do. AND for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
I sincerely hope that this declaration has brought a little light to your cloudy world.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Research Papers
So for the past week or so, I've spent quite a good amount of time pondering the research papers we have been assigned for AP Composition. Last week I was basically trying to think of something, anything to write about. What is my original argument? Is any argument original, really? Think about it, I'm sure there's someone somewhere in the world that has had the same thought as you about a certain topic. They may not have written a paper about it, but chances are that somebody had the same idea.
Anyway, after much painful mulling over several different avenues down which I could take this project, I finally decided a couple days ago what I would write about. Basically my argument is that throughout time in America, laws have been enforced based on gender, social class, and race rather than being enforced uniformly. The more I started thinking about it, the more interesting the topic became to me. And even more so once I started researching it. I found a court case called Muller v. Oregon that took place in 1908, and this particular court case legalized sexual discrimination in the work place. How can that possibly be legalized-- it's discrimination? The fact that discrimination could be legalized is ridiculous! I mean, I do realize that a good amount of discrimination occurs every day, and a lot of the time the people doing the discriminating are let off the hook like nothing ever happened. So I guess some people would argue that by not making discrimination illegal you are essentially saying that it is legal. But, I'm not quite sure that's the case either. It's a rather difficult situation to ponder.
So how exactly do you go about making discrimination illegal? Yes, it is illegal for store owners to stop African Americans from entering their stores like they used to in the 60s, and it is illegal for companies not to hire someone based on his or her race, but how do you patrol it? An African American person can apply for a job and not get the job, but is that to say that he or she didn't get the job solely because of the fact that they're black? Maybe there was a white person who was more qualified and had more experience? On the other hand, maybe the black person didn't get the job because they were black. But how does the black person prove that the company didn't hire them because of that? The company will always have millions of excuses to fall back on.
So I went off on a rather long tangent there, but my point of this was to state that although the research paper is a lot of work, I think it is kind of an interesting assignment. It's something I've never had to do before-- creating my own original argument, and I think that I might actually learn something from this paper.
Anyway, after much painful mulling over several different avenues down which I could take this project, I finally decided a couple days ago what I would write about. Basically my argument is that throughout time in America, laws have been enforced based on gender, social class, and race rather than being enforced uniformly. The more I started thinking about it, the more interesting the topic became to me. And even more so once I started researching it. I found a court case called Muller v. Oregon that took place in 1908, and this particular court case legalized sexual discrimination in the work place. How can that possibly be legalized-- it's discrimination? The fact that discrimination could be legalized is ridiculous! I mean, I do realize that a good amount of discrimination occurs every day, and a lot of the time the people doing the discriminating are let off the hook like nothing ever happened. So I guess some people would argue that by not making discrimination illegal you are essentially saying that it is legal. But, I'm not quite sure that's the case either. It's a rather difficult situation to ponder.
So how exactly do you go about making discrimination illegal? Yes, it is illegal for store owners to stop African Americans from entering their stores like they used to in the 60s, and it is illegal for companies not to hire someone based on his or her race, but how do you patrol it? An African American person can apply for a job and not get the job, but is that to say that he or she didn't get the job solely because of the fact that they're black? Maybe there was a white person who was more qualified and had more experience? On the other hand, maybe the black person didn't get the job because they were black. But how does the black person prove that the company didn't hire them because of that? The company will always have millions of excuses to fall back on.
So I went off on a rather long tangent there, but my point of this was to state that although the research paper is a lot of work, I think it is kind of an interesting assignment. It's something I've never had to do before-- creating my own original argument, and I think that I might actually learn something from this paper.
I hear the Track Team Singing
Alright, well seeing as how track season started yesterday, I decided to write my poem as a little tribute to the track team. It is INCREDIBLY lame, I do realize this. Thus, I ask that you do not judge me on my poem writing skills, because I HAVE NONE.
I hear the track team singing, the raspy voices I hear;
Those of the sprinters-- each one singing his, as it should be, fast and choppy
The hurdler singing his as he leaps through the air
Those of the marathoners-- each one singing his, as it should be, slow and graceful
The miler singing his as he rounds another bend
Those of the jumpers-- each one singing his, as it should be, high and long
The high jumper singing his as he flops on the mat
Those of the throwers-- each one singing his, as it should be, strong and powerful
The shot putter singing his as he spins in the circle
During the crisp afternoons and chilly nights,
I hear the track team singing.
Again, please don't judge me on my lack of poem writintg ability.
I hear the track team singing, the raspy voices I hear;
Those of the sprinters-- each one singing his, as it should be, fast and choppy
The hurdler singing his as he leaps through the air
Those of the marathoners-- each one singing his, as it should be, slow and graceful
The miler singing his as he rounds another bend
Those of the jumpers-- each one singing his, as it should be, high and long
The high jumper singing his as he flops on the mat
Those of the throwers-- each one singing his, as it should be, strong and powerful
The shot putter singing his as he spins in the circle
During the crisp afternoons and chilly nights,
I hear the track team singing.
Again, please don't judge me on my lack of poem writintg ability.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Self-Reliance
"Life only avails, not the having lived."
This quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-Reliance definitely caused me to think. The line itself is short, and that might be part of the reason why I think it's such a good line. Only seven words, and yet it can cause so much controversy as to what it means.
Basically what I think Emerson is trying to say here is that the fact that a person lived isn't really what's important. Yes, you lived your life. However, so did billions of other people in the world. The question is, what did you do with it? To avail means to profit or to get an advantage from, so take that into consideration, and does it really change the meaning? I think when you add that in, maybe it's saying that you only get an advantage from life and from doing something, not from just living. Or put another way, the world will only profit from your life if you make something of it, the world isn't going to profit just because of the fact that you were born and died. Life only profits, not the having lived. On the other hand, is he saying that it isn't really a person in general that profits, but life itself? I'm not sure.
Maybe I'm way off here, but that was just what came to mind when I read it.
This quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-Reliance definitely caused me to think. The line itself is short, and that might be part of the reason why I think it's such a good line. Only seven words, and yet it can cause so much controversy as to what it means.
Basically what I think Emerson is trying to say here is that the fact that a person lived isn't really what's important. Yes, you lived your life. However, so did billions of other people in the world. The question is, what did you do with it? To avail means to profit or to get an advantage from, so take that into consideration, and does it really change the meaning? I think when you add that in, maybe it's saying that you only get an advantage from life and from doing something, not from just living. Or put another way, the world will only profit from your life if you make something of it, the world isn't going to profit just because of the fact that you were born and died. Life only profits, not the having lived. On the other hand, is he saying that it isn't really a person in general that profits, but life itself? I'm not sure.
Maybe I'm way off here, but that was just what came to mind when I read it.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Great Gatsby-- Finished!
The first thing I'm going to say right now is that if you haven't yet finished the book, don't read this. I happened to have nothing else to do during study hall today, and decided to finish it. Anyway I was quite surprised by what happened in the end of the book.
When Myrtle Wilson gets hit by the yellow car, I knew right away that it was Gatsby's car that hit her. I figured he hit her on purpose because he was mad at Tom for saying that Daisy never loved Gatsby and she loved him, etc. However, what I didn't guess was that the person driving the car wasn't actually Gatsby, it was Daisy herself. Well then after reading that, my first reaction was that maybe Daisy had done it on purpose so that Tom wouldn't cheat on her anymore. But then I realized that probably wasn't the case, because Tom would cheat on her anyway. Not to mention, it wouldn't be fair of Daisy to get mad at Tom for cheating when she herself had been canoodling with Gatsby recently. Anyway, then as I read further I learned that Daisy hadn't meant to hit Myrtle. Myrtle had seen Tom driving the car earlier in the day, and so when she saw the car again she immediately assumed that it was Tom driving. She ran out into the road to talk to Tom, and was hit by Daisy.
The next few pages go on to talk about how crazy Mr. Wilson was going because of the fact that his wife was dead; basically his friends and neighbors stayed with him so that he wouldn't do anything crazy. Clearly they weren't too successful though, because he ran away and ended up at Gatsby's house. This is the part in the story where I got very confused. The book says that Gatsby and Nick and the butlers saw Mr. Wilson's body laying on the ground. It also says the Gatsby told Nick to talk to Meyer Wolfsheim (however you spell that) because he didn't want to be alone at a time like this. So what I though was that Mr. Wilson had come to Gatsby's house to kill him, but then Gatsby ended up killing Mr. Wilson. Well then to throw another loop into the story, Gatsby's dad shows up to attend his son's funeral. WHAT?! Needless to say, I was quite confused. Here I had been thinking that Mr. Wilson was dead because Nick talks about seeing his body on the lawn and talking to Gatsby in the days following. But then Gatsby's dad comes to his house to attend the funeral, and Nick starts calling Gatsby's friends and inviting them to the funeral. So what is it? Who died? I'm pretty certain at this point that Gatsby did die, but did Mr. Wilson also die? This has me so incredibly annoyed. Did Mr. Wilson shoot Gatsby and then shoot himself, thus the reason why Nick saw Wilson's body? But then if Gatsby is dead, why was Nick talking to him if he was dead? Not to mention, I found it a little humorous that no one showed up to Gatsby's funeral except for Nick, Gatsby's dad, the butlers, and the "owl-eyed man." Clearly something was messed up with Gatsby since no one showed up to his funeral.
Despite the fact that the end of the book left me very confused and slightly pissed off, I enjoyed the book overall. It was very descriptive, and I think it would be impossible not to find the writing in the book exceptional.
When Myrtle Wilson gets hit by the yellow car, I knew right away that it was Gatsby's car that hit her. I figured he hit her on purpose because he was mad at Tom for saying that Daisy never loved Gatsby and she loved him, etc. However, what I didn't guess was that the person driving the car wasn't actually Gatsby, it was Daisy herself. Well then after reading that, my first reaction was that maybe Daisy had done it on purpose so that Tom wouldn't cheat on her anymore. But then I realized that probably wasn't the case, because Tom would cheat on her anyway. Not to mention, it wouldn't be fair of Daisy to get mad at Tom for cheating when she herself had been canoodling with Gatsby recently. Anyway, then as I read further I learned that Daisy hadn't meant to hit Myrtle. Myrtle had seen Tom driving the car earlier in the day, and so when she saw the car again she immediately assumed that it was Tom driving. She ran out into the road to talk to Tom, and was hit by Daisy.
The next few pages go on to talk about how crazy Mr. Wilson was going because of the fact that his wife was dead; basically his friends and neighbors stayed with him so that he wouldn't do anything crazy. Clearly they weren't too successful though, because he ran away and ended up at Gatsby's house. This is the part in the story where I got very confused. The book says that Gatsby and Nick and the butlers saw Mr. Wilson's body laying on the ground. It also says the Gatsby told Nick to talk to Meyer Wolfsheim (however you spell that) because he didn't want to be alone at a time like this. So what I though was that Mr. Wilson had come to Gatsby's house to kill him, but then Gatsby ended up killing Mr. Wilson. Well then to throw another loop into the story, Gatsby's dad shows up to attend his son's funeral. WHAT?! Needless to say, I was quite confused. Here I had been thinking that Mr. Wilson was dead because Nick talks about seeing his body on the lawn and talking to Gatsby in the days following. But then Gatsby's dad comes to his house to attend the funeral, and Nick starts calling Gatsby's friends and inviting them to the funeral. So what is it? Who died? I'm pretty certain at this point that Gatsby did die, but did Mr. Wilson also die? This has me so incredibly annoyed. Did Mr. Wilson shoot Gatsby and then shoot himself, thus the reason why Nick saw Wilson's body? But then if Gatsby is dead, why was Nick talking to him if he was dead? Not to mention, I found it a little humorous that no one showed up to Gatsby's funeral except for Nick, Gatsby's dad, the butlers, and the "owl-eyed man." Clearly something was messed up with Gatsby since no one showed up to his funeral.
Despite the fact that the end of the book left me very confused and slightly pissed off, I enjoyed the book overall. It was very descriptive, and I think it would be impossible not to find the writing in the book exceptional.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Minister's Black Veil
"The Minister's Black Veil" was a pretty interesting short story. It took me a while to get into the story and figure out what was going on, but after reading the note at the end of the story and talking about Handkerchief Moody it all started making sense. The connection to Handkerchief Moody and how he had murdered his friend on accident as a child caused me to start thinking deeper into the story of the "Minister's Black Veil". I wondered what Hooper had done in his past that caused him to suddenly start wearing the veil. Had he committed a crime or done something that made him feel extremely guilty-- thus he decided that it was too shameful for him to even show his face ever again? Or had his face suddenly disfigured and it was so ugly that he felt no one should see it? Also, what did he look like before he started wearing the veil? From what I could gather from the story, he hadn't always worn the veil, so wouldn't the people in the town know what he looked like and not be quite as nervous about it? What could happen in one night that would make him suddenly be afraid to ever see his face?
I especially liked how at the end of the story when the other pastor tries to take off Hooper's veil, Hooper acts very calm at first and says that he is going to let the pastor remove his veil, but then he freaks out and says "Never on Earth!" and won't let anyone see his face.
Also, when Hooper was drinking the wine at the wedding that he crashed and got a glimpse of his face; he spit out the wine and left. I found this to be very curious. Was his face that ugly or startling? Although this story was interesting, I still have numerous questions that I can't seem to get past.
I especially liked how at the end of the story when the other pastor tries to take off Hooper's veil, Hooper acts very calm at first and says that he is going to let the pastor remove his veil, but then he freaks out and says "Never on Earth!" and won't let anyone see his face.
Also, when Hooper was drinking the wine at the wedding that he crashed and got a glimpse of his face; he spit out the wine and left. I found this to be very curious. Was his face that ugly or startling? Although this story was interesting, I still have numerous questions that I can't seem to get past.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Corporate Sponsorship
After doing the timed writing yesterday about the advantages and disadvantages of corporate sponsorship in high schools, it really got me thinking as to whether or not I ever really see it in any of the high schools I travel to for sports.
Thinking about it, I don't really remember seeing it in many schools. There's one school in the Rock Valley conference that I remember distinctly having some advertisements up around there school, and this was one of the poorer schools in our conference. I guess it makes sense though-- that school didn't have the funding to pay for things on their own, so they turned to large corporations and had them foot the bill instead of raising property taxes or whatever else they decide to do in order to bring in more funding. However, you'd think that since the school was receiving corporate sponsorship in addition to the other funding they receive from the government and property taxes it would have been a nicer school with better quality facilities... but it definitely was not a nice school. So where is all this money going? Obviously I don't know all the details about what the teachers' salaries are and what the expenses are for that school, but it just makes me curious as to how a school like that can be so crappy when ours is so nice? We are a public school too, so why is our school so much nicer than so many of the other public schools in our area?
It seems to me that if a school feels it necessary to contaminate their students' learning by placing advertisements up all around the school, they might as well put up advertisements for a good company that will actually give them enough money to fix some things and create a some what decent learning environment. Otherwise, what's the point? You're going to contaminate their learning, and still have a crappy school? Pointless.
Thinking about it, I don't really remember seeing it in many schools. There's one school in the Rock Valley conference that I remember distinctly having some advertisements up around there school, and this was one of the poorer schools in our conference. I guess it makes sense though-- that school didn't have the funding to pay for things on their own, so they turned to large corporations and had them foot the bill instead of raising property taxes or whatever else they decide to do in order to bring in more funding. However, you'd think that since the school was receiving corporate sponsorship in addition to the other funding they receive from the government and property taxes it would have been a nicer school with better quality facilities... but it definitely was not a nice school. So where is all this money going? Obviously I don't know all the details about what the teachers' salaries are and what the expenses are for that school, but it just makes me curious as to how a school like that can be so crappy when ours is so nice? We are a public school too, so why is our school so much nicer than so many of the other public schools in our area?
It seems to me that if a school feels it necessary to contaminate their students' learning by placing advertisements up all around the school, they might as well put up advertisements for a good company that will actually give them enough money to fix some things and create a some what decent learning environment. Otherwise, what's the point? You're going to contaminate their learning, and still have a crappy school? Pointless.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
