Why AP Classes Don't Work

As a student of a very competitive high school, I'm one of those kids who loves to fill herself up with AP, or Advanced Placement classes. Not only do they look great on a college resume and have the potential to give me some college credit, but they could allow me to stimulate my mind like never before, to experience a new level of thinking.

 At first, I was very excited for this mind stimulation. Don't get me wrong, I learned a lot, and the classes were definitely a challenge. But then I learned the structure of these classes. They're based on a single AP test taken on the end of the year, that combines multiple choice questions and a few written essays.In fact, a large amount of class time is dedicated to preparing for this test, learning how the essays are structured, taking practice tests, etc. When learning the material, we are taught it in the same fashion as it will appear on the AP test, so we best know how to succeed on the test.

Long story short: we are not learning about the subject at hand, we are learning how to take a test.

I strongly disagree with this ideology. I take AP classes in hopes to get a broader understanding of history, language, and the social sciences. But I instead find myself wasting precious class time writing practice essays. Yes, I feel that writing essays is important, but the amount of time spent learning how to write these essays and other bits and pieces for the test is unequal to the benefits they provide in the long run for learning the subject. Plus, the fact our entire score is based on an assortment of a few essays, and multiple choice questions is completely unfair. One test does not accurately measure one's ability.

A class for higher learning shouldn't be based on a single test. Credit for that class shouldn't be based on a single test(especially one that costs money, which puts lower income families at a disadvantage). A better way to structure AP classes would be to base college applicability on an average grade from both semesters. For example, if a student managed to get an average As for both semesters in the class, they should be awarded with a 5. An average of Bs would earn a student a 4, Cs a 3, etc. That way, a student can earn credit for performing well in the class itself.

Now I open up the question to you. What do you think of the way AP classes are currently structured? If you've had any prior experience with AP tests, what did you think of them? Which idea for structure do you think would work better, how it is now or with the "in class score" option? Let me know in the comments below!  

The Logic of the Facebook Dislike Button

So a common question and Facebook "issue" that has been discussed is how it still lacks the much desired "dislike" button. In fact, the page that calls for a dislike button currently holds over 3,000,000 people, or roughly 4% of the total population of France. That's a pretty big number. Arguments that are pro-dislike button range anywhere from arguing it would discourage pointless posts to the logic that websites like Youtube have both a "thumbs up" and "thumbs down", so why not Facebook? And, logically speaking, since social media is arguably for it's users, why won't Facebook staff change it's formatting to meet their desires? (Especially with how quickly it changes it's formatting, anyway).

There are two main answers to this question: The first has more to do with business. Since many company's use this "like" button as a means of seeing who "likes" their product, they can promote their company through use of social media. If Facebook were to add a dislike button, people would also use this button for these company's pages, which would look bad on the company's part, and does damage to their business. Even if Facebook reformatted it's website so these businesses don't have a dislike button, it would probably draw complaints from the users, since this may come off as trying too hard to promote certain companies, not allowing for people to express their real opinion of them, etc. And Facebook programmers know that, to keep the website going, they need these company advertisements, so in order to keep them from going away, the dislike button has not been added. Also, part of it is the fear of it promoting bullying. People could easily use the dislike button to dislike statuses of people they don't like, and it could hurt self-esteem of those who receive many of these dislikes. With the idea of "trolling" and cyberbullying becoming a bigger issue in today's society, it's no wonder this fear has come about.

Now, to keep this blog post less complex, I'd mostly like to focus on the bullying-ideology of the "dislike" button. (Though I may do a future post on the more involved relations of social media/business). This idea raises one main questions: Does America try too hard to "filter" everything into a nice culture? Yes, Facebook itself is internationally used, but the company itself is based and created in America, thus the company runs on American ideas. Do we have the right to be rude? Does taking measures to reduce acts of bullying reduce rates of bullying or only cover up the problem?

It's a tricky question. In my opinion, I personally believe not installing a "dislike" button is a smart choice. I feel like it will serve nothing more than to make people feel anxious and self-conscious about their statuses and posts, and feel less comfortable expressing themselves online. Trolling does exist, I don't deny that, but when you actually create a button that tells people to be rude to others, that's enforcing this rudeness. This isn't desensitizing: it's avoiding an issue that's really unnecessary to bring about in the first place.For me, I personally dislike the idea of a dislike button.

Also, in terms of the Youtube argument, I feel it's more acceptable to allow a dislike button. Most people on Youtube use it not to interact with friends, but to post videos about, well, just about everything. Since many of these videos come from actual film-makers or people hoping to get more viewers to their videos, knowing what people like from your video can help you achieve this goal.

And now I open up the question to all of you. Do you think the dislike button is a good idea? Do you think America tries too hard to "filter" what is good and bad? What do you think of concepts such as "trolling" and cyber bullying? Are these issues or overreactions? Also, just interesting, since Youtube allows dislikes and Facebook does not, do you think this speaks to the idea of it being easier to insult those we don't know as well? Let me know in the comments below.

For more interesting articles on the logic of the dislike button, check out the links below (there are also plenty more if you type in "why there is no Facebook dislike button" onto Google):

http://live.wsj.com/video/why-doesnt-facebook-have-a-dislike-button/11AB2B22-D8BA-4725-A0C2-4A47D16C910C.html#!11AB2B22-D8BA-4725-A0C2-4A47D16C910C


http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/10/10/facebook-dislike-button-why-it-will-never-happen/

Lists of Happiness

So this post is a bit less political, and more on the philisophical end of things.

The other day, I was at TAB meeting for my local library, in which teens assemble to discuss how to improve the teenage literature and social atmosphere of the library. At this first meeting, the coordinator handed out this list of 40 things where, apparently if you can check off at least 20 as being relevant to your life, you have the ability to live a happy life. Some included living in an environment where you have adult friends for influence, a group of friends that influence you for the better, and reading for at least an hour a day. I was astounded at how hard I had to try and find those 20 things. I was almost upset. Does this mean I'm not happy? After a while, of deep, interpersonal thought and twisting the meaning of the sentences, I did manage to check off 20 things, but I realized very quickly how little this satisfied. And that's where my thoughts begin.

What trully defines what our happiness is? There is no one list or secret that tells you what YOU need to make you happy. I'm tired of this idea of a one-fix-everything cure for our problems in life, and as long as you live up to certain standards, you're okay. But that's not how the world works. People can lead perfectly good lives while never picking up a book, never wrting a single sentence on paper, and never speaking to those beyond their own set group of friends. Happiness has no one clear defintion, it comes in many forms, and reforms itself over and over to meet our day to day changes and styles. We as humans love to have answers to our problems, to be able to understand the world we live in, but it's not that simple. To find out what makes us content we must pick the things that get us excited. We must move past the influence of others and decide for ourselves if we are trully happy with where we are right now. No list is going to tell us if we're happy: we do. So what if I don't always have the time to read. Does that mean I'm unhappy?

Never let any form of happiness define you. Never let anyone tell you if you're happy or not. You decide if you're happy.

Gay Blood

The article that inspires this blog post a bit outdated, but the content within is still very relevant today. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), homosexual men are not allowed to donate blood in the United States, for fear of spreading HIV/AIDS. The belief is that since homosexuals have higher rates of HIV, they are more likely to spread the disease. If you ever donate blood, you'll notice one of the boxes to check off with a "yes" or "no" states something along the lines of, "I have had sexual intercourse with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man", your blood will not be used.

I have many problems with this law. First off, their reasoning is completely false. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), rates for homosexual couples with AIDS is actually lower than that of heterosexual couples. Yet they seem to have no trouble denying heterosexuals access to donation.

This is beyond simple safety, this is ideology. This law is based off assumptions made back when AIDS was still GRID, or "Gay Related Immune Deficiency". Even if homosexuals did have higher rates of AIDS, the FDA also states that men who have slept with prostitutes, whom also have higher rates of HIV/AIDS, are allowed to donate blood after a year of the encounter.

This is an unnecessary law. If someone wishes to give their blood to save another, this decision shouldn't be based on whom they love. The United State's hospitals already has less blood than they need, and we deny an entire group of people the ability to help this problem? Yes, people can choose to lie when checking off the box asking about their sex-life, but just the fact this rule is in place shows a lack of progress for equality towards all. I firmly believe this law should not be in place: if our country wants to see progress, we have to show it.

But as always, I open up the question to you. Do you feel this law should be in place? Why or why not? How do you think the idea of homosexuality stands in America today? Feel free to give me your opinions below.

For more information, feel free to check out the links above.