January and February are scary and exciting months for high school seniors. Most of them will receive either their acceptance or rejection letter from the colleges they have applied to in the next few weeks. (If you are over forty, you are probably thinking it is too early for that, but what we used to call "early acceptance" is now when the majority of students get accepted. Yeah, we're old.) There's a lot of celebrating for those who are accepted, with congratulations on Twitter and pictures of acceptance letters on Instagram. For those who are rejected by their top choices, there are conversations about what to do next. For some, their top choice is their only choice; so not getting in feels like the end of the world.
I teach at a school where nearly everyone goes to college, so there are a lot of conversations with both seniors and juniors as they contemplate their options. I have recently found myself having the same conversation multiple times. It goes something like this:
Student: I'm not sure I can get into UNC (or some other highly competitive, very expensive school).
Me: Is there another school that offers what you want to study?
Student: Yeah, but I don't think I can get a job if I go there.
Me: Have you checked into what those school's placement percentages are? It's hard to believe that everyone who majors in (student's field of study) there can't get a job.
Student: No, but I heard UNC is the best for that.
Me: Where are you thinking about working? Do they insist on a UNC degree for that?
Student: I don't know. I just figured . . . trails off as they realize they haven't done their research.
Me: You know, I went to ORU.
Student: I've never heard of that.
Me: See. I went to a school you've never heard of, and I've never had a problem getting a job.
The number of times I have had this conversation reveals a belief among students that they must go to the highest end, most competitive, or most expensive university in order to work in their chosen field. There may be 400 other schools that offer programs in their interests, but they limit themselves to the most difficult one to achieve because of that belief. The thought has never occurred to them that those 400 schools wouldn't exist if their students didn't get jobs.
Let's get some perspective. If you want to work at one of those high-end New York law firms that only higher Harvard graduates, then you have to go to Harvard. If you just want to practice law, there are 205 schools that are approved by the American Bar Association. You can even find the employment placement stats for all of those schools on the ABA website. There are almost two thousand accredited nursing schools in the United States, but I have students who insist on putting themselves through the process at UNC-Charlotte because they truly believe it is the only way. I spent a little time online attempting to find a place that would only hire a nurse trained at UNC-Charlotte, and I was unable to find one. I do, however, know quite a few working nurses who graduated from Wake Tech's Nursing program.
The key is to match your plans to your goals. When you visit a college, ask a lot of questions. I mean, a lot of questions - that's what the guide is there for. If you are just thinking, "These are pretty buildings," when you make your decision, you aren't going to make the smartest choice. Some colleges cost as much as buying a house, and you might spend thirty years trying to pay off your student loan debt (Which, by the way, you should pay because you decided to go there and get a degree. Stop insisting that the college forgive your debt. They provided a product for a price you agreed to. They don't owe you anything now; you owe them. Sorry, soap box.) There's a pretty good chance that, unless your goals are really extreme, you can go to a much less expensive school and reach your goals without having to live on rice and beans for the first twenty years of adulthood. You aren't getting married. You're allowed to change schools. You will probably change majors because most people do. If you find your identity in your school, that's idolatry; and you should flee from it.
The best advice I can give (aside from pray for wisdom) is to broaden your scope. You may discover that there is a school you haven't considered yet where you would absolutely thrive.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Sunday, January 22, 2017
The Experience of a Non-Oppressed Woman
I had a different plan for this week's blog, but in light of the Women's March and the things I have seen on my Twitter feed the last few days, I decided to change the topic. Next week, I'll write about matching your college aspirations to your goals.
If aliens had visited earth for the first time on Saturday, they might have thought there were only two kinds of people on this planet that exist in monolithic, homogenous groups. They would have thought of men as evil morons who, in spite of the apparent idiocy, managed to rise to power over the other, clearly superior group. If those aliens managed to look at a Twitter feed, they might have divided the world differently, but still into two groups - those in favor of abortion and those against it. If they only read the tweets of one of my more liberal friends, they might have thought the two groups were those who are open-minded and socially aware (read that "woke" on Twitter) and those who are close-minded and deluded.
We are not aliens, so we can be more aware than they would be. We can recognize that there are more than two kinds of people on earth. There are seven billion individuals on earth. Each of them has their own story, and that story is only partially based on their gender, their view on a given social issue, their race, their level of political involvement, etc. We, as individuals are shaped by all of those things, not just one of them at a time. I would like to tell one of those seven billion stories - my own. (NOTE: This does not negate the story of any other woman or minimize their experience.)
I was born forty years ago in Raleigh, NC. That makes me a Southerner, a Generation X-er, and a city dweller. I was raised in a largely conservative home, and I attended both private and public schools. I earned excellent grades, not because I have a superior intellect, but because I worked hard in school and loved learning. I particularly enjoyed and excelled in science, and not one of my teachers asked how it was possible that a girl was doing that. I grew up wanting to be an astronaut, and no one told me that a woman couldn't do that - even though I was five before the first U.S. woman was sent into space.
From the first time I learned the word abortion, I chose to be Pro-Life and worked for the NC Right to Life organization when I was thirteen years old. I have marched for Sanctity of Human Life Day because it is my right as an American citizen to do so. At seventeen, I became a blood donor, not because someone told me to, but because I made a choice at school one day. When I registered to vote on the morning of my 18th birthday, I got to choose how I wanted to register, and I chose to be a Republican. I have voted without coercion for twenty-two years, usually with my party but sometimes not because I have the freedom to vote however I choose. I voted against Donald Trump's election because I am allowed to do that. I am not oppressed or told how to vote by anyone.
I chose to take physics, and my female chemistry teacher insisted that I take honors physics, not because I was a girl but because she said it would be a waste of my skills for me not to. I fell in love with physics and decided I wanted to teach it. No one ever said to me that a woman couldn't teach physics, and I have been hired to do so in three different schools.
I earned my degree through both the school of education and the school of arts and science at Oral Roberts University. I took classes in which I was the only female, and I also took classes in which there were no males. I was held to the same standards in physics, chemistry, biology, and geology as my male counterparts, and I worked just as hard to earn good grades in calculus as the boys. I never once had a conversation with a professor in which I as discouraged from pursuing my degree. In fact, it was just the opposite. I was highly encouraged by all of my professors at ORU, especially those I knew well in the physics and engineering department. They even hired me to teach earth science labs while the regular professor was on sabbatical the year after I graduated.
I have taught science in three different schools, and in all three of them, my department chair was female. I have worked under 14 principals and assistant principals, 8 of whom were women. I don't discuss salary with my co-workers because there is no positive outcome to that, but when I look at my own paycheck, it reflects exactly what was on the contract I signed. I have heard enough conversations about pay to be certain I am not paid thirty percent less than my equally qualified male counterparts. I don't believe that anything I have done (or not done) in life is because of or in spite of my gender.
I am single because I believe that is God's plan for me. One hundred years ago, that would have made me either scandalous or pitiful. Now, it results in a few questions from my students, little more. I don't feel unsafe at home or anywhere else without a man by my side, but I'm not reckless about my safety. If I'd been alive at the turn of the 20th century, I'd have been a suffragette; but by 2017 standards, I am practically a chauvinist.
My blog is generally supposed to be about education, so here's my call to female teachers. Don't complain to your students that you are treated as unequal. Show them that you are not. Modeling equality will always mean more than talking about it.
It is just as sexist to believe that all women believe the same way as it is to believe they are less than men. In fact, because it is a more subtle form of sexism, it may be even more dangerous. I am more complex than my gender, and so are you. Women, feel free to march. It is your right, earned for you by the blood, sweat, and tears of those women at the turn of the last century. March for equality but not sameness. March for your beliefs, but recognize that the woman next to you might believe differently than you do. Recognize that if there are five hundred thousand women at a march, there are five hundred thousand DIFFERENT stories, not just one story.
If aliens had visited earth for the first time on Saturday, they might have thought there were only two kinds of people on this planet that exist in monolithic, homogenous groups. They would have thought of men as evil morons who, in spite of the apparent idiocy, managed to rise to power over the other, clearly superior group. If those aliens managed to look at a Twitter feed, they might have divided the world differently, but still into two groups - those in favor of abortion and those against it. If they only read the tweets of one of my more liberal friends, they might have thought the two groups were those who are open-minded and socially aware (read that "woke" on Twitter) and those who are close-minded and deluded.
We are not aliens, so we can be more aware than they would be. We can recognize that there are more than two kinds of people on earth. There are seven billion individuals on earth. Each of them has their own story, and that story is only partially based on their gender, their view on a given social issue, their race, their level of political involvement, etc. We, as individuals are shaped by all of those things, not just one of them at a time. I would like to tell one of those seven billion stories - my own. (NOTE: This does not negate the story of any other woman or minimize their experience.)
I was born forty years ago in Raleigh, NC. That makes me a Southerner, a Generation X-er, and a city dweller. I was raised in a largely conservative home, and I attended both private and public schools. I earned excellent grades, not because I have a superior intellect, but because I worked hard in school and loved learning. I particularly enjoyed and excelled in science, and not one of my teachers asked how it was possible that a girl was doing that. I grew up wanting to be an astronaut, and no one told me that a woman couldn't do that - even though I was five before the first U.S. woman was sent into space.
From the first time I learned the word abortion, I chose to be Pro-Life and worked for the NC Right to Life organization when I was thirteen years old. I have marched for Sanctity of Human Life Day because it is my right as an American citizen to do so. At seventeen, I became a blood donor, not because someone told me to, but because I made a choice at school one day. When I registered to vote on the morning of my 18th birthday, I got to choose how I wanted to register, and I chose to be a Republican. I have voted without coercion for twenty-two years, usually with my party but sometimes not because I have the freedom to vote however I choose. I voted against Donald Trump's election because I am allowed to do that. I am not oppressed or told how to vote by anyone.
I chose to take physics, and my female chemistry teacher insisted that I take honors physics, not because I was a girl but because she said it would be a waste of my skills for me not to. I fell in love with physics and decided I wanted to teach it. No one ever said to me that a woman couldn't teach physics, and I have been hired to do so in three different schools.
I earned my degree through both the school of education and the school of arts and science at Oral Roberts University. I took classes in which I was the only female, and I also took classes in which there were no males. I was held to the same standards in physics, chemistry, biology, and geology as my male counterparts, and I worked just as hard to earn good grades in calculus as the boys. I never once had a conversation with a professor in which I as discouraged from pursuing my degree. In fact, it was just the opposite. I was highly encouraged by all of my professors at ORU, especially those I knew well in the physics and engineering department. They even hired me to teach earth science labs while the regular professor was on sabbatical the year after I graduated.
I have taught science in three different schools, and in all three of them, my department chair was female. I have worked under 14 principals and assistant principals, 8 of whom were women. I don't discuss salary with my co-workers because there is no positive outcome to that, but when I look at my own paycheck, it reflects exactly what was on the contract I signed. I have heard enough conversations about pay to be certain I am not paid thirty percent less than my equally qualified male counterparts. I don't believe that anything I have done (or not done) in life is because of or in spite of my gender.
I am single because I believe that is God's plan for me. One hundred years ago, that would have made me either scandalous or pitiful. Now, it results in a few questions from my students, little more. I don't feel unsafe at home or anywhere else without a man by my side, but I'm not reckless about my safety. If I'd been alive at the turn of the 20th century, I'd have been a suffragette; but by 2017 standards, I am practically a chauvinist.
My blog is generally supposed to be about education, so here's my call to female teachers. Don't complain to your students that you are treated as unequal. Show them that you are not. Modeling equality will always mean more than talking about it.
It is just as sexist to believe that all women believe the same way as it is to believe they are less than men. In fact, because it is a more subtle form of sexism, it may be even more dangerous. I am more complex than my gender, and so are you. Women, feel free to march. It is your right, earned for you by the blood, sweat, and tears of those women at the turn of the last century. March for equality but not sameness. March for your beliefs, but recognize that the woman next to you might believe differently than you do. Recognize that if there are five hundred thousand women at a march, there are five hundred thousand DIFFERENT stories, not just one story.
Monday, January 16, 2017
What Students Learn From Our Response to the Inauguration
For as long as I can remember, there are people who are upset about the outcomes of elections and refuse to watch the inauguration because "he ain't my President." I'm not saying that President Elect Trump isn't causing more intense reactions than normal, but I am saying that it isn't new. From Jimmy Carter, who was President the year I was born until now, I have heard people every four years on both sides claim that this particular person isn't their President. I have heard people every four years on both sides threaten to move to Canada if the other guy wins; but as far as I know, there hasn't been a population spike in the great North. I have heard people every four years on both sides complain about how much money is spent on the inauguration and the inaugural balls, but they only complain about it when it is the guy they didn't vote for. This year, there are some pretty famous people encouraging us to boycott watching the inauguration because of Donald Trump's election, as though it will keep him from being President. (That doesn't work, by the way. I go to bed before the ball drop every New Year's Eve, and every year when I wake up, it's the next year anyway.)
As a teacher, I must always be ready to ask, "what do my students learn from my reaction to this?" I know it never seems like they are paying attention, but they pick up on more than you think. They listen to adults as we make these statements, and they watch what we do. When we say, "he ain't my President," we teach them that it is okay to be childish when we don't get what we want. We teach them not to respect authority as long we don't like that particular authority figure, which in turns teaches them to undermine all authority figures, including us. When we act as though the world is about to come to an end, we teach them that God's sovereignty is dependent upon the actions of one man. We teach them that our founders didn't plan very well when they limited the power one man could have. When we refuse to watch the man we didn't want to win take the oath of office, we teach them that our preferences should override our patriotism. These are dangerous things to teach our kids, and I believe we need to grow up and like grown ups.
From previous posts, you know that I am not a fan of our President Elect. As a life-long Republican and Never Trumper, I had some very complex emotions on election night. I voted third party for the first time in my life and would never have wanted this man to be my President. But here's the deal; HE IS. He is my President, whether I voted for him or not because our country only has one President. He is going to be the President for the next four years because the constitution that governs our country says so. Since George Washington made the choice to step down after his second term, America has been defined by the peaceful transfer of power. People like me, who opposed Trump's election, didn't have to be publically killed in order for him to be elected.
Do you want your students (or parents, your kids) to respect your authority, trust God, and believe in the rule of law? Then, let's start teaching our kids more positive lessons than we did in 2016, and let's start this week. Let's speak about the office of the President with respect even when we don't respect the man. In so doing, we will teach them that we respect authority, all authority because that's the only way a civilized society works. Let's talk about God's plan for the future of our country instead of acting like it doesn't have one. In so doing, we will teach them to trust something bigger than a man. Let's teach our kids about the constitution and the wisdom of our founding fathers in restricting the power of President instead of hoping their history teacher will do it for us and then complaining if he doesn't. In so doing, we will teach them that understanding our government is the responsibility of every citizen. Let's celebrate what the inauguration represents, as hard as it may be to listen to Trump take the oath. In so doing, we will teach them that in a democracy, sometimes the other guy wins and that believing in the concept of democracy means we accept that. Not only do we accept it, we celebrate it by throwing a bunch of big parties, a cost far lower than other countries have to pay to change their government.
When you spend time with kids, for a few minutes or for eight hours a day, God has given you a responsibility. They watch you in order to learn what it means to be an adult. If we act like children instead of adults, we abuse that responsibility. Before I went to bed on election night, I practiced saying, "President Trump" a few times out loud. It helped my say it the next day when I had students in front of me. If you are having trouble with Trump, try it; it might work for you.
Trump enthusiasts, you aren't off the hook either. You have the opportunity and responsibility to teach your kids to be gracious this week.
As a teacher, I must always be ready to ask, "what do my students learn from my reaction to this?" I know it never seems like they are paying attention, but they pick up on more than you think. They listen to adults as we make these statements, and they watch what we do. When we say, "he ain't my President," we teach them that it is okay to be childish when we don't get what we want. We teach them not to respect authority as long we don't like that particular authority figure, which in turns teaches them to undermine all authority figures, including us. When we act as though the world is about to come to an end, we teach them that God's sovereignty is dependent upon the actions of one man. We teach them that our founders didn't plan very well when they limited the power one man could have. When we refuse to watch the man we didn't want to win take the oath of office, we teach them that our preferences should override our patriotism. These are dangerous things to teach our kids, and I believe we need to grow up and like grown ups.
From previous posts, you know that I am not a fan of our President Elect. As a life-long Republican and Never Trumper, I had some very complex emotions on election night. I voted third party for the first time in my life and would never have wanted this man to be my President. But here's the deal; HE IS. He is my President, whether I voted for him or not because our country only has one President. He is going to be the President for the next four years because the constitution that governs our country says so. Since George Washington made the choice to step down after his second term, America has been defined by the peaceful transfer of power. People like me, who opposed Trump's election, didn't have to be publically killed in order for him to be elected.
Do you want your students (or parents, your kids) to respect your authority, trust God, and believe in the rule of law? Then, let's start teaching our kids more positive lessons than we did in 2016, and let's start this week. Let's speak about the office of the President with respect even when we don't respect the man. In so doing, we will teach them that we respect authority, all authority because that's the only way a civilized society works. Let's talk about God's plan for the future of our country instead of acting like it doesn't have one. In so doing, we will teach them to trust something bigger than a man. Let's teach our kids about the constitution and the wisdom of our founding fathers in restricting the power of President instead of hoping their history teacher will do it for us and then complaining if he doesn't. In so doing, we will teach them that understanding our government is the responsibility of every citizen. Let's celebrate what the inauguration represents, as hard as it may be to listen to Trump take the oath. In so doing, we will teach them that in a democracy, sometimes the other guy wins and that believing in the concept of democracy means we accept that. Not only do we accept it, we celebrate it by throwing a bunch of big parties, a cost far lower than other countries have to pay to change their government.
When you spend time with kids, for a few minutes or for eight hours a day, God has given you a responsibility. They watch you in order to learn what it means to be an adult. If we act like children instead of adults, we abuse that responsibility. Before I went to bed on election night, I practiced saying, "President Trump" a few times out loud. It helped my say it the next day when I had students in front of me. If you are having trouble with Trump, try it; it might work for you.
Trump enthusiasts, you aren't off the hook either. You have the opportunity and responsibility to teach your kids to be gracious this week.
Monday, January 9, 2017
A Defense of Southern Snow Days
This message is to all the Yankees who look down on Southerners because you don't have snow days no matter what. I have been listening to this for forty years, and now that social media exists, I have to be mocked while sitting alone in my living room. Let's set aside for the moment the fact that these people are anywhere but the snowy north when they tell me their stories of traveling to work or school through feet of snow and that I presume they left these places and came to the south for a reason.
I'm tired of being treated like southerners are too stupid to go to work and school during snow and ice. I would like to speak up in defense of the southern shut down during the snow, even when the amount is small.
Let's use a money analogy. A wealthy person can buy expensive non-essentials because they have more money than they can spend. I have students who don't think twice about paying $800 for a pair of shoes while I have to do a cost-benefit analysis when considering $80 shoes. Because they have a lot of money, they don't think about what to do with it. A person who doesn't have much money will put a lot of time into their decisions. After they have met their basic needs, they must truly relish what non-essential items they spend their money on because it may be their last fun purchase for a while. People who get a lot of snow don't have to value it. There will always be more. You can waste your snow day like the wealthy waste money. You can make it part of your everyday lives because you have it every day. Your kids build snowmen for recess, and you have outdoor activities because you have to if you are going to live your life. And, no one in the south looks down on your for it because we know that you can't stop living your lives for three months. In the south, however, we don't get three months worth of snow. We sometimes only get three days of snow. I have experienced years where not one inch fell. For this reason, we must not waste one single flake. It may be our only chance to make a snowball until next year.
Now, let's address driving because I'm really tired of being mocked about this. What you think is us being stupid is actually us being responsible. It's not just that we don't want to drive on ice; we truly can't. Here's the deal. When you get to practice something 60 or 70 days a year, you should be good at it. It would be weird if you weren't. Since we only get to practice it 2 or 3 days a year, there is no chance that we will be good at it. At that point, it is prudent for us to recognize that we do not possess this skill. It is responsible for us to not put you and each other in danger by trying to employ a skill we do not have. No matter how good YOU are a driving in the snow, it won't do you any good if I crash into you. You're welcome.
Yankees, if you want to go out and drive around on ice covered roads, more power to you as you drive around in low traffic. Since you live in the south now, it would be super helpful if you would just let us enjoy ourselves without your condescension. If you want to go somewhere, go ahead. We'll be home enjoying what could be our only snow day all year.
PS - I have no explanation for the milk and bread thing, so you can keep that.
I'm tired of being treated like southerners are too stupid to go to work and school during snow and ice. I would like to speak up in defense of the southern shut down during the snow, even when the amount is small.
Let's use a money analogy. A wealthy person can buy expensive non-essentials because they have more money than they can spend. I have students who don't think twice about paying $800 for a pair of shoes while I have to do a cost-benefit analysis when considering $80 shoes. Because they have a lot of money, they don't think about what to do with it. A person who doesn't have much money will put a lot of time into their decisions. After they have met their basic needs, they must truly relish what non-essential items they spend their money on because it may be their last fun purchase for a while. People who get a lot of snow don't have to value it. There will always be more. You can waste your snow day like the wealthy waste money. You can make it part of your everyday lives because you have it every day. Your kids build snowmen for recess, and you have outdoor activities because you have to if you are going to live your life. And, no one in the south looks down on your for it because we know that you can't stop living your lives for three months. In the south, however, we don't get three months worth of snow. We sometimes only get three days of snow. I have experienced years where not one inch fell. For this reason, we must not waste one single flake. It may be our only chance to make a snowball until next year.
Now, let's address driving because I'm really tired of being mocked about this. What you think is us being stupid is actually us being responsible. It's not just that we don't want to drive on ice; we truly can't. Here's the deal. When you get to practice something 60 or 70 days a year, you should be good at it. It would be weird if you weren't. Since we only get to practice it 2 or 3 days a year, there is no chance that we will be good at it. At that point, it is prudent for us to recognize that we do not possess this skill. It is responsible for us to not put you and each other in danger by trying to employ a skill we do not have. No matter how good YOU are a driving in the snow, it won't do you any good if I crash into you. You're welcome.
Yankees, if you want to go out and drive around on ice covered roads, more power to you as you drive around in low traffic. Since you live in the south now, it would be super helpful if you would just let us enjoy ourselves without your condescension. If you want to go somewhere, go ahead. We'll be home enjoying what could be our only snow day all year.
PS - I have no explanation for the milk and bread thing, so you can keep that.
Sunday, January 8, 2017
It's Good For What It's Good For
I was recently teaching a lesson about electrolytes. Since the place where most students hear the word electrolyte is Gatorade commercials, it can lead to some interesting discussions. We talk about the history and how the chemistry department at the University of Florida created it to aid the Gators because of how much electrolyte carrying sweat they lose during practice. Inevitably, there is a student sitting in my class drinking Gatorade as though it is a normal drink. Because my students are in middle school, this isn't currently doing them any harm. At that age, I'm pretty sure they could eat Tupperware, and their bodies would figure out how to process it. However, the salt content is far too high to be treating it like it is a regular drink, especially as you get older or have a family history of hypertension. Gatorade is a great thing for the purpose for which it was designed, but it really doesn't belong in any other context.
After having this discussion, I started noticing how often I say, "It's good for what its good for. Just don't use it for everything." Here are a couple of examples.
Quizlet - The students at GRACE love quizlet. When I begin study training with middle school students at the beginning of the year, I ask them to tell me how they currently study. The vast majority of the answers use the words "look over the notes" and "make a quizlet." The teacher next door to me hates quizlet, not because it is a bad program but because his material isn't about vocabulary. For that reason, I have changed my study skills lesson to include tools for different thinking levels. I show them blooms taxonomy, and we talk about how quizlet is really only helping with the bottom, remembering, level. I don't know if I am getting through to them, but I want them to understand that you have to have more than one tool in a toolbox. Quizlet is like a hammer. A hammer is great for hammering nails, but it would be terrible for unscrewing a screw. Quizlet is great for remembering vocabulary, but it will not help you analyze the parts of an experiment or decipher a graph. It's good for what it's good for.
Wikipedia - I have written in previous posts about how much I have changed my tune on Wikipedia. I have even donated to their fundraising campaign for the last two years and am now the proud owner of a Wikipedia water bottle. That said, I still teach my students that it has its place. Like printed encyclopedias, it doesn't really have a place in formal research. A student shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a source in a paper they write for me any more than they should be using me or the student sitting next to them as a source. I show it to them often, however, as a way of finding answers to questions or just learning more about a topic (and the hyperlinks are great for the curious learner in a way print encyclopedias could never have been). Wikipedia is wonderful when used properly; just be aware of its limitations. It's good for what its good for.
Each time I find myself saying this to a student, I come to the realization that this is true of most things in life in general and education in particular. Most things have an intended purpose, and they find their best use in those bounds. Whether you are talking about the dangers of overdosing on prescription drugs or the dangers of extramarital sex or the dangers of driving your car from New York to London, the problem isn't the tool itself. It is using them improperly.
Examining the proper use of things will help you to find joy in them and not blame them when you use them off label.
After having this discussion, I started noticing how often I say, "It's good for what its good for. Just don't use it for everything." Here are a couple of examples.
Quizlet - The students at GRACE love quizlet. When I begin study training with middle school students at the beginning of the year, I ask them to tell me how they currently study. The vast majority of the answers use the words "look over the notes" and "make a quizlet." The teacher next door to me hates quizlet, not because it is a bad program but because his material isn't about vocabulary. For that reason, I have changed my study skills lesson to include tools for different thinking levels. I show them blooms taxonomy, and we talk about how quizlet is really only helping with the bottom, remembering, level. I don't know if I am getting through to them, but I want them to understand that you have to have more than one tool in a toolbox. Quizlet is like a hammer. A hammer is great for hammering nails, but it would be terrible for unscrewing a screw. Quizlet is great for remembering vocabulary, but it will not help you analyze the parts of an experiment or decipher a graph. It's good for what it's good for.
Wikipedia - I have written in previous posts about how much I have changed my tune on Wikipedia. I have even donated to their fundraising campaign for the last two years and am now the proud owner of a Wikipedia water bottle. That said, I still teach my students that it has its place. Like printed encyclopedias, it doesn't really have a place in formal research. A student shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a source in a paper they write for me any more than they should be using me or the student sitting next to them as a source. I show it to them often, however, as a way of finding answers to questions or just learning more about a topic (and the hyperlinks are great for the curious learner in a way print encyclopedias could never have been). Wikipedia is wonderful when used properly; just be aware of its limitations. It's good for what its good for.
Each time I find myself saying this to a student, I come to the realization that this is true of most things in life in general and education in particular. Most things have an intended purpose, and they find their best use in those bounds. Whether you are talking about the dangers of overdosing on prescription drugs or the dangers of extramarital sex or the dangers of driving your car from New York to London, the problem isn't the tool itself. It is using them improperly.
Examining the proper use of things will help you to find joy in them and not blame them when you use them off label.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Photography Geek Out
I have been taking pictures since I was a child and started really caring about it around the age of 13. At that time, I was using a compact film camera, so it was really just about composition.
At 15, my parents bought me a Minolta SLR, and I became an addict. My dad and I would take 8 or 9 rolls of film each during a 5-day vacation. We had no idea, of course, what kind of pictures we had until we took them to the drug store to have them developed. All of this added up to serious money, and we would often end up with two or three pictures that we liked enough to enlarge and frame.
When digital photography began, I was a little resistant to it. Strike that; I was a lot resistant to it. Strike that, I said I would never use a digital camera. Early digital cameras were TERRIBLE. You would have been better of taking a writing class so that you could vividly describe what you were looking at than taking a digital photo of it. They were 2.1 Megapixels. Even when I started teaching yearbook (12 years ago), I had a tiny 4 Megapixel camera that was more or less useless for volleyball and basketball. It was difficult at dances, and it couldn't zoom in at a soccer field worth anything. I found that I was still frequently using film and then having it developed onto a CD in order to use as a digital file.
Digital photography has come a long way since those days. I now have a Nikon D3100 DSLR, a wonderful camera with 14.2 Megapixels. While this isn't the highest end camera I could own (I will never be able to afford or justify a Hasselblad for instance, and the 24-megapixel cameras that are currently available are outside of my price range), it has almost seven times more pixels than that first camera! Please also note that I am not a victim of the megapixel myth. I do know that a megapixel count isn't the only thing that affects photo quality; I use this simply to illustrate how far the technology has advanced in this short time.
The most important feature of a DSLR is the lens quality. It is actually better to invest in a good lens on a lower megapixel body than the other way around. The lens determines the stability of your image, the coherence of refractions, and the amount of light gathered. This is why I always recommend either Canon or Nikon when people ask about cameras to buy. Neither of those companies will put their name on bad glass, and the glass is important.
This leads me to my most geeky post. During Christmas break, I bought a new lens specifically with light gathering in mind. It is not about the zoom as it goes from 50mm to 150mm, but it has an f-stop of f/2.8! My lowest f-stop prior to this lens was f/3.5. If you are not a photo geek, that probably means nothing to you, but it is a big deal. The lower that number is, the more light the lens can take in. This means I can shoot at a swim meet without annoying officials with a flash (I'll get to test that out next week). Today, I'll take it into our school gym and take pictures that I won't have to edit for exposure. This is exciting for me. I bought it used at Peace Camera in Raleigh, which made it significantly less expensive than buying it new from Nikon. I'll post more after I've had time to play with it. So far, I've only used it for pictures of my cat.
At 15, my parents bought me a Minolta SLR, and I became an addict. My dad and I would take 8 or 9 rolls of film each during a 5-day vacation. We had no idea, of course, what kind of pictures we had until we took them to the drug store to have them developed. All of this added up to serious money, and we would often end up with two or three pictures that we liked enough to enlarge and frame.
When digital photography began, I was a little resistant to it. Strike that; I was a lot resistant to it. Strike that, I said I would never use a digital camera. Early digital cameras were TERRIBLE. You would have been better of taking a writing class so that you could vividly describe what you were looking at than taking a digital photo of it. They were 2.1 Megapixels. Even when I started teaching yearbook (12 years ago), I had a tiny 4 Megapixel camera that was more or less useless for volleyball and basketball. It was difficult at dances, and it couldn't zoom in at a soccer field worth anything. I found that I was still frequently using film and then having it developed onto a CD in order to use as a digital file.
 |
| My first yearbook camera ($110 in 2005) |
Digital photography has come a long way since those days. I now have a Nikon D3100 DSLR, a wonderful camera with 14.2 Megapixels. While this isn't the highest end camera I could own (I will never be able to afford or justify a Hasselblad for instance, and the 24-megapixel cameras that are currently available are outside of my price range), it has almost seven times more pixels than that first camera! Please also note that I am not a victim of the megapixel myth. I do know that a megapixel count isn't the only thing that affects photo quality; I use this simply to illustrate how far the technology has advanced in this short time.
The most important feature of a DSLR is the lens quality. It is actually better to invest in a good lens on a lower megapixel body than the other way around. The lens determines the stability of your image, the coherence of refractions, and the amount of light gathered. This is why I always recommend either Canon or Nikon when people ask about cameras to buy. Neither of those companies will put their name on bad glass, and the glass is important.
This leads me to my most geeky post. During Christmas break, I bought a new lens specifically with light gathering in mind. It is not about the zoom as it goes from 50mm to 150mm, but it has an f-stop of f/2.8! My lowest f-stop prior to this lens was f/3.5. If you are not a photo geek, that probably means nothing to you, but it is a big deal. The lower that number is, the more light the lens can take in. This means I can shoot at a swim meet without annoying officials with a flash (I'll get to test that out next week). Today, I'll take it into our school gym and take pictures that I won't have to edit for exposure. This is exciting for me. I bought it used at Peace Camera in Raleigh, which made it significantly less expensive than buying it new from Nikon. I'll post more after I've had time to play with it. So far, I've only used it for pictures of my cat.
 |
| I may have to do some weight lifting to strengthen my hands and wrist because glass weighs a lot! |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Güten Pränken is the term coined by Jim Halpert in the series finale of The Office to describe the good pranks that he was going to play on... -
Well, this is certainly not what I had planned to write about this week. I wanted to write some educational wonky stuff in preparation for ...
-
This pendant is a small scale version of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "dissent collar." I bought it a few days after her death in 20...
