Procrastination in Action and Other Randomness

Summer is winding down. This is the week (including the coming weekend) to get my ducks in order planning wise for the beginning of the school year. This includes revising/pulling together my syllabi, though for most of my classes the syllabus is not nitty-gritty in detail like you get in college. But they include the basics, including expectatations, grading policies, etc. I am planning on going the route of Rehoboam this year. Although the metaphor breaks down quickly, because I am also Solomon. I will be tougher than myself, in other words. How so? Homework. I used to penalize late work at ten percent a day, and only accept it late if we didn't cover the answers in class. Now I'm upping it to twenty percent a day, and no late work accepted after a week. This will save me from having to correct packets of ten homework assignments I occasionally get at the end of a marking period, from a slacker who has done little work and wants to do something about their grade last minute. In the past I have fudged a little on the ten percent a day bit and usually given some credit for work no matter how late it is submitted, even if it's only 2 points out of 10. But I decided I am tired of pandering to slackers like that anymore, at least in classes with college bound students. Let the grades drop if they will, I am not going to be a victim of my own leniency any more. This will also allow me to throw away piles of unused handouts much sooner than before, and keep my classroom a little cleaner.

I have work to do, but I am currently procrastinating by writing this. But it feels good. For these are still the leisure days of summer, where there is work to do but no immediate deadline to complete that work by. A very different story during the year. Lesson planning tends to have significant deadlines attached to it, like the next day when the bell rings and the class begins. You kind of have to have a product ready to go. This tends to suppress procrastination. But nothing is suppressing it right now. So I'm enjoying being a procrastinator just a little while longer...

Moving on to other random events/ideas in my life...

I saw a guy driving and clapping the other day. It was weird. I was driving one way, and he the other, so I didn't have time to stare for long. But it looked like he was driving solo in his car. And he definitely appeared to clap his hands a few times as he sat behind the wheel and drove nearer. What is that all about? Was he listening to a book on CD where the hero just came through in the clutch and stopped the bad guys? Was he listening to some music which called for claps in it? Was he out of his mind? Was he in love and celebrating the fact that the girl he just proposed to said yes? It's a mystery.

Another weird fact. There is a guy, probably in his mid twenties, who comes by my condo building at various times and carries on conversations with a girl, also twenty-something, two stories above my condo, on the third floor, via her window. He gets her attention by yelling/calling up to her. I'm pretty sure he does not live near here, but drives to see her. At least one conversation went something like this: "Hey _____ girl's name." Repeated girl's name because she didn't come at first. (I hear commotion and perk my ears to figure out what is going on.) Girl comes. Guy: "Hey, what's going on. Did I wake you up or something. Do you want to go and hang out?" Girl: "I'm not interested right now. Maybe tomorrow?" Ok, I embellished a bit, if it's possible to embellish a mundane conversation and make it still sound mundane. Anyway, multiple visits of this nature have made me wonder: what kind of relationship is this, or who in their twenties doesn't have a phone? It's obvious to me that the guy does not call over first. He just shows up and yells (really just calls loud enough for her to hear) until she comes to the window (a tiny bit like the guy who calls for the key from Maria in Life is Beautiful, for any who might remember that scene). Why doesn't he call and keep his conversations from being heard throughout the neighborhood? Does she not have a phone? Does she have a phone but hasn't given him her number because she is avoiding him? Whatever the case is, it's a little odd.

Ok, enough randomness for now. I do have things to do, so I'll stop. Gotta get things done before giving my life blood away today. Literally. (Some of it.)

Am I Thinking Like a Liberal?

I am torn, confused, and worried. Doubts grip me. Is my thinking messed up? Am I embracing what I dislike? Am I going over to the dark side? I have been tormented by certain thoughts recently on a certain subject. I can see strengths to both sides of the argument. Yet I find myself leaning toward a side I would have rejected in earlier years. Why is my thinking shifting? Is it a sign of encroaching darkness? This is kind of scary. Perhaps someone will be able to rescue my poor wayward soul. If you think you can, make the attempt. Or just come over to the dark side with me, if you are convinced by my thinking.

My thoughts revolve around the issue of college scholarships. Specifically, who should get them? On what basis should they be distributed? Is there a system that is the most just? Obviously if someone has money they want to give away, they should be free to choose the criteria. So a better question should make it more personal. If I had a million dollars to set up a scholarship fund, how would I determine the criteria? Who are the most worthy candidates?

At the risk of mischaracterizing the classic positions, I will at least attempt to sketch what I perceive to be the classic conservative and liberal views. Perhaps my agony revolves around a misconception of these views. But this is roughly how I see them:

Conservative view: Scholarships should be awarded however the owner of the money wants them to be awarded. This could be controversial. Aid could target whites only, for example. But because things work best in a free market system, where competition thrives, scholarships are ideally awarded based on academic merit alone. This allows for the greatest amount of competition, and pushes people to achieve on their own. It does not preclude someone from aid simply because they are from a wealthy background, or simply because they are not black, or whatever. In short, individualism and personal achievement trumps the social state and efforts to target aid away from the wealthy and towards the lower class (i.e., wealth redistribution).

Liberal view: Aid should be targeted to the most needy. There is no need for scholarships based on merit alone, as those would allow the rich who can already afford college to take away aid that might go to help those who can't otherwise afford college. An assessment of one's ability to attend college without the applied for scholarship should be made with the application. Aid might target the bright but poor, or other groups traditionally underrepresented in academia.

My thoughts about scholarships were first stirred up in early June, when I attended a scholarship night at my school. That evening hundreds of thousands of dollars were given out to many worthy candidates. Most of the awards had multiple criteria. This was usually some sort of combination of two or more of the following: academic merit, community service, financial need, talent in some area, etc. etc. These are the usual kinds of things you expect to see in scholarships. One thing that stood out to me, however, was the awarding of some of the juiciest scholarships. There were a number of them for something like 5000 dollars each. What struck me was the parental occupations of many of these students. While each was certainly deserving academically, they mostly came from affluent backgrounds. That student's parent is a lawyer. Oh yeah, that student's parent is also a lawyer. Oh yeah, that student's parent is also a lawyer. Ok, that student's parents have their own business in town. Etc. I believe most of these scholarship recipients have parents making six figures or more.

So I thought some more about this. And I have started to think, why do it that way? Why give money to someone who doesn't need it?

Freeze for a moment. I will now play devil's advocate, and counter with the classic conservative view that would make the likes of Rush Limbaugh proud:

Who can really say that this student doesn't "need" it? Who are you to make such a judgment about someone else's life? And why is that relevant? The scholarship is based on academic achievement, not based on financial need. What the parents will do with the extra money in their pocket is their business.

Another thought, from the liberal side: gifted students are lucky. They've simply inherited the genes of their smart parents, who are in high paying jobs because of they're natural ability. So why should you award students for genetic inheritance, over which they had no control?

Limbaugh/other conservatives response: Genetic ability is irrelevant, because they still had to work hard and put their genes to good use and earn those good grades. It may or may not have been easier to achieve academic success, but you shouldn't punish them and deny a scholarship for things over which they have no control. Each person faces unique challenges in their life that they have to work hard to overcome. You shouldn't simply chalk up academic success to wealth.

Back to my thoughts. Could giving money based on financial need be more compassionate than giving it simply based on achievement? While theoretically I thought I was a strong proponent of having a level and open "playing field" on which everyone can participate and get scholarships, I recognize there are limits to this. Someone who is living in the state's care because they were sexually abused by a guardian (as has been the case with at least one of my students) is facing a greater uphill battle to achieve academic success than a student who has two parents in the home and a 2006 Ford Mustang convertible to drive themself to school (I also have had a student in this situation).

I also recognize that I can't stick to the "let everyone compete openly" philosophy too strongly without being a bit of a hypocrite. For I benefited greatly from getting a scholarship targeted on the basis of geographic location AND need. Many of the rich were essentially shut out. And I went to college!

So despite the strong argument that can be made for refraining from judging who "needs" a scholarship, I find myself returning to the thought that many of those students who got those scholarships shouldn't have. Or at least it would have been better if the scholarship had included need as a factor in judging who was awarded one. For the reality of the situation is that most of the recipients were going to whatever college they wanted to go to, regardless of the scholarship they won. They made their parents proud by getting it, but also happy because they could now spend that 5 grand on an extra mortgage payment for their vacation home in Bermuda. Put another way, it might have been a little payback for the 5 grand the parents spent on private music lessons so the student could earn that A in band. But either way, it wasn't something that enabled a student to attend college who couldn't otherwise afford it. And another student, who had a fractionally lower GPA, may now be saddled with that much more college debt they will struggle to pay for half of their adult life, because they lost out on a scholarship they desperately hoped to get. Isn't that a cheery thought?

There is a balance to this. I think that there is definitely a place for academic merit-only scholarships. Take colleges themselves, for example. It's in their best interest to attract the brightest and best to their school, so it makes sense for a college to provide some healthy scholarships to lure that bright student in, regardless of their financial background. But an individual who sets up their own scholarship fund? If I had that kind of money, I would prefer targeting it to those who might not be able to go to school without it. It seems a waste to do otherwise.

So am I thinking like a liberal? And should my thinking be corrected?

What if Heaven Lacks a Mansion with Your Name on It?

This is not heresy, but possible reality. And it's biblically based. Now hear me out. Or rather, let me quote the relevant passage:
"In my father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." (John 14:2) [insert warning of possible "preachiness" in this post here; read at your own risk!]

Undeniably there are many mansions in heaven, and there are places set apart in heaven for everyone who is saved. But there is little evidence that there is a mansion per person. In fact--although I am not and make no claim to be a Greek scholar--the Greek word for "place" can be translated "spot," "generally in space but limited by occupancy," "room," and "quarter." It is especially interesting that the Greek word used in the passage is not a possible alternate one that could have been used, one which connotes a larger locality, and is similar to words like "location," and "home."

So picture this possibility: you get to heaven, and after all the joyful, tearless reunions you are shown a place to live. It is in a huge mansion built for 50,000 or so. Your room is a tiny spot, or hole in the wall, in that mansion. Your mansion sits in a row of 50,000 or so other mansions.

Are you depressed by this thought? I hope not. I've been pondering the possibility that if I, or anyone, is bummed out by this, then maybe my focus in wanting to go to heaven is wrong. Am I looking forward to heaven because of material riches that will be there? Or is the focus on who will be there? Seems to me like the latter is the most important.

I don't mean to be too critical of those great hymnwriters of the past who have written about mansions for everyone up in heaven, and all the great things there will be for people to enjoy. After all, the Bible is full of plenty of references to riches and gold streets and pretty luxurious stuff up there, in terms of material things. So it seems appropriate to revel in it to some degree. At the same time, I think some hymnwriters and some speakers have perpetuated what seems to be an extrabiblical idea: that is, that there really is a mansion with your own name on it in heaven, or maybe just your nuclear family's name on it. This could be, but the language used in the Bible doesn't suggest it. Whatever it is, it will be greater than we're able to imagine. But it might not include that TV and cushy chair you always hoped for, along with a huge dining room, a jacuzzi, or whatever else you were dreaming of for your own space...

This makes me wonder how it is that such a concept came to be an accepted part of church thinking. At least I have had this conception. From what I have observed in church, others do as well. So I expect it is an idea that many widely believe. When did such an idea start, especially if it is extrabiblical? My best guess is that it emerged sometime in the 19th century, about the same time that the wealthy decided to be conspicuous and display their wealth. Actually, that is somewhat of a stupid statement, for the wealthy have conspicuously displayed their wealth in America long before the 19th century. A better way of putting it might be that the 1800s is when an increasing number of people became wealthy enough to show their wealth, and were in such great numbers that they may have attracted more attention than the wealthy few had before. Or at least then people were starting to think that they might become as wealthy as the next guy, if they only worked for it, as opposed to back in the 17th century when it was pretty obvious that an indentured servant newly arrived in Maryland to work on a tobacco plantation was not ever going to be as wealthy as Landon Carter (a really rich guy, if you couldn't have guessed this!).

But I digress. So you have people thinking there is enough social mobility to become the next millionaire. After all, Andrew Carnegie did it, right? So why can't I? This context could have been what set the stage for preachers to see the material focus of their parishioners. So they decided to preach against a material focus. But how did they frame things? Focus on the spiritual and you will be rich in the next life! You'll even get your own mansion! Those millionaires flaunting their wealth have nothing on what heaven will be like! Warm and fuzzy feelings abounded. And the concept stuck in the Christian ethos. Heaven=mansions for all. Heaven=material blessings beyond what we will ever experience on earth, or should ever try to experience on earth.

Of course, this is highly speculative. I don't have evidence to support this. But I suggest there is room for some doctoral student in Christian history to look into this for a dissertation. "How Christian myths evolved" or something of the sort would be a good topic. So start digging, you wannabe scholar. Look into when sermons on "individual mansions for everyone in heaven" became popular, and then dig up reasons why preachers picked those kinds of sermons.

Lest anyone think I'm out in left field or something, I'm not against believing there will be wonderful things in heaven. Even wonderful material things. But I also believe that if this is the main reason you want to get there, and the main thing you talk about in the context of going there, there might be something missing. And if you're planning on a dream house, prepare for something way better than that (it can't be worse than you can imagine, right?): a hole in the wall! :-)

Night and Day, or Dark and Light; Or How Have you Flip-flopped Since Childhood?

This is pretty deep. Prepare to be impressed. I was contemplating awhile back the intrigue in how tastes change. Specifically, mine. I was thinking about this as I tossed and turned one night, enduring another bout of insomnia. I often can't get to sleep at night, so I have plenty of time to think. And in my particular dorm room on a college campus in VA, it dawned on me how much my tastes have changed since childhood. For I was trying to sleep in a room that had quite a bit of ambient (I think that's the word I want) light in it, seeping in through the window--albeit shaded somewhat by a venetian blind. The streetlight or whatever it was outside that was so bright was making the room far brighter than I was comfortable with. In fact, I hated the brightness. It's a wonder I ever got to sleep during my stay there.

It occurred to me how different my sleeping tastes are now versus in my childhood. Now I like it to be pitch black in my room. Any light other than the digital clock is a nuisance. I can deal ok with a little bit coming from a window, but my tolerance level is really low. I like the dark. I like not being able to see my hand in front of my face. This is how I sleep the best nowadays.

But when I was a kid, I always had to have a night light. Don't know that I can say I was afraid of the dark like some kids are, but I certainly didn't like it to be pitch black. I always had to have a night light, there had to be just so much light coming into my room from the hall, etc. I think my sleeping habits changed a bit when I got my own room. If I recall correctly (though it's funny how little I do recall), I started to sleep with the door closed. Still, there was light from the hallway, so it wasn't completely dark.

I don't remember when exactly the change happened, and I became such a darkness addict. But it happened. I am interested how my tastes have changed so drastically. Can't quite say it's been a 180 degrees change, because it's not like I was sleeping with the light on in my room before. Still, things are very different.

This makes me curious about how other people's tastes may change drastically from childhood to adulthood. Anyone out there have a similar story? What preferences or tastes did you have as a young one that are now totally different?

Hmmm. This also makes me wonder if the amount of light in the room is a source of marital tension, or at least something that needs to be worked out between spouses? Any married persons out there experience conflict in their marriage over this? :-)

Teacher Nightmares

Ever have a nightmare as a student, in which you dream you go to school and suddenly remember you forgot to even start a ten page term paper due that day? Or how about get a test for which you studied hard, only to find you don't know any of the questions? Ever wake up in a cold sweat over such dreams, and find relief that it is the middle of the summer?

I've had dreams like these. I think most students have. But now I've had one from the other side. A teacher nightmare. At least I think I did. This was one of those dreams that I only remembered some time after having it. Because of this, the details are rather fuzzy and vague. I may invent some just to make the story more interesting. But it was something like this:

It was the first day of school. And things went horribly. Specifically, I was totally unprepared for the students! I ran out of things to do with them. They just sat there with nothing to do. Everying fell flat the first day. And the first day is so important to get right! This was indeed a nightmare. Then I woke up and realized it was the middle of summer. What relief! I still have the chance to get things right on the first day! The new school year is not off to a terrible start after all!

By the way, despite being 30 days away from the first day with students, and enjoying the time off immensely, I still find myself plotting/scheming/thinking about how I can improve things in the classroom next year. How might I teach the Civil War differently? How will I teach note taking skills in a way that serves students better? What might I drop during the first days of school in order to be more efficient with the time and hit the road running? Is that exercise I loved using so much last year really beneficial for my classes? How might I grade research papers differently? Should I change my grading system entirely, and move from a category system (50 percent for tests, 25 percent for homework, etc.) and go to a points only system, so students can more easily keep track of their grades? Should this be done with AP students only, or other classes as well? Should I adjust my homework checking policy if I have the child of a school board member in my class, or should I stick to it because I believe it's the most efficient way to keep students honest about their work?

I believe I have given some thought to just about all of these questions so far. And there's plenty more time to think and plan! Such is the life of a teacher, even on vacation...

I Don't Get This

Brace yourselves, folks. The recent dearth of posts may be about to change. Expect an explosion of posts on random topics I've been thinking about over the recent past. As long as I can remember them all, that is.

First, I don't get this survey. I think it speaks to the sad state of Americans' vocabulary these days. This article caught my attention awhile back:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/LearnToBudget/LittleSplurgesAreTheKillers.aspx

If you don't care to read it, basically it says that Americans splurge the most on dining out, and this may contribute to financial difficulties. It was based on a survey that asked respondents to identify the expense people splurge the most on. What baffled me was that these categories and percentages were included in the survey:
children and schooling--7 percent
bills and utilities--4 percent
medical--1 percent

I can see how some may splurge on children and get them things they don't need. But schooling? I guess it's a splurge if you send them to a private school, when you don't need to because they have other good options. Still, a little strange to have a category like that, I think.

But what's crazier is the other two categories. People splurge on bills and utilities? And medical expenses? These responses make me think some people do not even know what "splurge" means. It is "spend extravagantly," i.e., spend in a way that lacks restraint, or exceeding what is reasonable or appropriate. Can you picture Americans feeling the urge to spend more than they need to on bills/utilities because they are suddenly overcome with a desire to pay lots of money to their electric company? Is this because they usually don't pay their bills, so any time they pay in full it's seen as an extravagance? Or are they shelling out more than is due in a paroxysm of generosity?

This is either funny or sad or both. Funny because of the picture it conjures up. Sad because it seems that if/when you get to the point where surveys contain basic words that respondents don't understand, it shows a huge lack in education somewhere along the line... And how valid is a survey if those surveyed don't even understand the question?