Thursday, May 31, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
Canadian facing American Death Punishment
Capital punishment simply means an execution. Canadian
Ronald Smith is now facing a capita l punishment for committing murders in the
USA. Mr. Smith had been hitchhiking in Montana close to the Canadian border
with his two friends. They were drunk and needed a lift and Blackfeet Indian
cousins Thomas Running Rabbit and Harvey Mad Man, were kind enough to give
them a ride. Smith forced them out of the car, shot (and killed) them, and
stole the car. He was drunk and high on LSD (a drug) during the shooting so the
events are not 100% accurate and it might have led him to kill them. In court,
he was given the choice of a life sentence or a death penalty. He chose the
death penalty since he "couldn't imagine spending the next twenty years in
prison". After that, Smith rethought about it and wanted to live the rest
of his life behind bars. Now, Smith is wanted to be executed by the families of
Thomas and Harvey, and by some of the local government since it has been too
long for the state and taxpayers to take care of him. Should he live? There
have been many arguments whether he should live or not.
If a student gets in trouble in a different classroom,
then usually their teacher decides the consequence. In some more serious
situations, then both teachers decide the consequence. The USA should not have
total control over punishment of a Canadian. In some parts of USA, capital
punishment is allowed, but in Canada, there is no capitol punishment, so being
jailed up forever (or until you die) is reasonable, but capital punishment does
not work since Canada does not do it. Smith should be able to choose if he
wants to be executed or not, and he chose not to. If they really did not want him
there, they could send him to Canada to be locked up.
In the article, it is said that Smith had changed
personally and that his family believe it too. Sometimes criminals pretend to
“change” just to get a shorter time in prison. I believe that if a criminal has
truly “changed” they would accept the full consequences and in this case,
death. In another article, Smith said that he would accept death, but only
worries about his family. Therefore, I believe he shouldn’t be executed.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Are Sports Drinks Good For Teens?
Gatorade, Powerade, etc, are all what today's society considers sports, or energy drinks. But are they really healthy, or the best for the average teen to drink on a regular basis? I decided to research this topic since my brother happens to love them, but i have heard many terrifying stories on how they affect people. There are always pros and cons to everything, and of course they do have their uses. Lets take a look.
First of all the taste. Gatorade specifically has about 30 different flavours so athletes will have something that tastes better then plain water. Gatorade also hydrates an provides the restoration of electrolytes. Electrolytes help with your muscle contractions. They also include vitamins and they also replenish your body's fluids. When you sweat or after you're finished exercising they can provide the nutrients and vitamins you lost through sweating. Some sports drinks even have sugar free options, so its not as bad as having a can of coke.
Besides all the positives of sports drinks, there are many cons. When you over use or abuse the point of sports drinks it can result in harm to your body. First of all there is not much water , and water is ESSENTIAL for every athlete's body. Secondly the levels of dyes and sugars in sports drinks are quite high, causing dental damage. The dental damage from gatorade takes effect faster then coke. The sugar can also cause extra weight gain. One sport drink per day, everyday would cause at lead a 13lb weight gain per year. Some sports drinks have caffeine in them, but the levels can be even higher than a cup of coffee or a can of coke! Most companies claim that these drinks improve your over all experience, yet scientists don't even have hard evidence that this is even true.
Personally i don't think sports drinks are the best beverages to drink, but there obviously some very helpful positives. But next time you have the choice between water and a sport drink, go for the water. It may not taste as good, but you are doing your body a HUGE favour.
Sources:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/75345-pros-cons-gatorade/
http://www.lifescript.com/diet-fitness/articles/s/sports_drinks_exploring_the_pros_and_cons.aspx
http://michiganstatenews.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/pros-and-cons-of-sports-drinks-water-may-be-just-as-beneficial-when-sweating/
Ronald Smith, Will He Live?
Murdering people is a big crime. Should Ronald die for it? Thirty years ago he murdered two cousins. Because of this he had spent 30 years in Montana State Prison. Is Ronald truly sorry for his crime? He apologized to the family. From what he said we can truly find out if he should live.
First of all he apologized for his wrong doings. This is the first step, understanding the sorrow and pain you caused because of this act. He knows it's too late to fix anything but he wants another shot at life to live better. He wants to be a better person but can he? How do we know whether or not he can change for all we know he could murder someone again.
Now we also have to see the other side.Thomas Running Rabbit IV had seen his family suffer because of Ronald Smith's act. He was very sad and angry saying that he would not forgive Ronald. It makes sense that he would want Ronald dead. That would make them even. Or will it? Having the loss of someone you can never change the fact that a person died. No matter how much you want them alive or how much you want the murderer dead it does not change the fact that the victim will not live. Killing someone because of your sufferings doesn't make your life easier. It is like saying that because someone stole and broke your scooter you also stole a bicycle and destroyed it. The past is the past and we can do nothing to change it. Thomas should consider about if Ronald Smith does die does that make his life easier?
Sources
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ronald+Smith+Canadian+consular+official+speak+hearing+death+Canadian/6553907/story.html
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120502/smith-to-seek-clemency-in-montana-120502/
First of all he apologized for his wrong doings. This is the first step, understanding the sorrow and pain you caused because of this act. He knows it's too late to fix anything but he wants another shot at life to live better. He wants to be a better person but can he? How do we know whether or not he can change for all we know he could murder someone again.
Now we also have to see the other side.Thomas Running Rabbit IV had seen his family suffer because of Ronald Smith's act. He was very sad and angry saying that he would not forgive Ronald. It makes sense that he would want Ronald dead. That would make them even. Or will it? Having the loss of someone you can never change the fact that a person died. No matter how much you want them alive or how much you want the murderer dead it does not change the fact that the victim will not live. Killing someone because of your sufferings doesn't make your life easier. It is like saying that because someone stole and broke your scooter you also stole a bicycle and destroyed it. The past is the past and we can do nothing to change it. Thomas should consider about if Ronald Smith does die does that make his life easier?
Did Ronald Smith really change his family members think so. His sister Rita Duncan says that Ronald had really changed in his time in prison. Ronald Smith had counseled his sisters and his other relatives giving them advice that was holding the family together. Rita Duncan say he is the one who is the pillar holding the family up. Ronald spilled tears reciting his letter about his mother and how important she was to him. Ronald seemed to fully regret his crime seeing how much devastation he had caused not only to the victim's family but also to his own family. Smith's own daughter says that her father indeed had changed since the crime but his worried and scared.
A lot of people had suffered because of Ronald Smith. His family as well as the victim's family has suffered enough. Allowing Ronald Smith will have consequences. Has he truly changed? Will Ronald Smith be freed or will he face the death penalty?
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ronald+Smith+Canadian+consular+official+speak+hearing+death+Canadian/6553907/story.html
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120502/smith-to-seek-clemency-in-montana-120502/
Are Social Networking Sites More Beneficial or Harmful in Our Society?
Facebook, Twitter….and all the different
kinds of social networking sites, they are increasing in our society. Social
networking sites are services where people create their profile within the
bounded system it is where communications happen with others. Websites like
these helps grouping and connecting individuals with the same interest but from
different places. You may think social networking sites are useful but have you
ever wondered what the impact on us is? Here are the two sides of the story.
Information spread rapidly. By these
social networking sites, we receive news from around the world almost as fast
as when the local people receive it. Just by going on the internet we know
about the huge earthquake or a tragic accident that happened on the other side
of the world. Thanks to these sites world connections are made. Not just
connections around the world, connections are also made between people. On
these sites people communicate with friends, family, strangers that share the
same interest or even complete strangers that you happen to meet. It is also a
great way to find friends using social networking sites. Old friends that don’t
have any contact information are reunited because they found each other on
sites like these.
A lot of people focus on the positive side
of social networking sites and often forget how it can back stab you.
Are connections really made? It may seem that people communicate more often to
each other. But that is just an illusion. The chance of meeting person to
person, face to face, is reduced. If teenagers continue to communicate using
sites like these and not in person, teenagers might have problems communicating
orally with others because they are so use to doing it online. Using these
sites, you can talk to almost everyone, but you will never know who is sitting
behind the computer, unless you actually informed and checked with the person.
In order to create account for social networking sites, personal information
are asked. If these information are public, some people might use it for other
harmful use. This may affect your private space. Also putting pictures can
result in misuse; the most common one is the morphing of photographs. Teachers
and adults are all trying to promote the stop of bullying. But these social networking
sites just make everything worse. Cyber bullying is happening on these
websites, people use the internet to bully people. By spamming, calling names,
putting pictures, these are all examples of cyber bullying.
I do not think social
networking sites are good for our society, but I don’t think it is bad either.
If you use it properly without harming yourself or others, social networking
sites could be very useful. There are always safe ways to do things, so if you
keep all your personal information and avoid doing risky things, I don’t see
how sites like these are harmful.
Useful Sites
Canadian on Death row - should he live?
Canadian on Death row - should he live? Ronald Smith,
a Canadian had committed two murders nearly 30 years ago. He was drunk and high
when he decided to steal a car and thought about what it would be like to kill
someone. The two people that he had killed were cousins. Since then, he has
been in the fight for his life. However, he has now come to term of the death
sentence hanging over his head and is willing to move on now.
To
this day, many people agree that he is a changed man. Ronald Smith’s daughter,
Carmen Blackburn spoke on her father’s behalf, saying that he was a good man
along with other witnesses. This shows that Ronald Smith regrets what he did
and is trying to make a change. He should be given a second chance. There are
also lots of people who agree that Ronald Smith should be put on death
sentence. This includes many relatives of the two victims. Saying that he never
had the joy of knowing his father, Thomas Running Rabbit IV said that he will
pursue the death penalty with as much effort as Smith has expended to avoid it.
Throughout
the Western world, capital punishment is recognized as being wrong. It is known
that fighting a murder by putting a human being to death does not show the
sanctity of life. Lots of people agree with this and it includes me. If Ronald
was to put to death, this would make the relatives of two victims very happy
but what good does it do for them? Ronald has learned his lesson and is sure
that he won’t do it again. Putting Ronald to death would let his relatives
suffer as much as his victim’s family. For this reason, Ronald should not be
put to death.
The
board has 30 days to decide whether to execute Ronald or not. Panel member Mike
McKee said it will likely issue a decision during the week of May 21. They will forward a non-binding recommendation
to Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who will ultimately decide if Smith will be
executed by lethal injection. Be sure to check it out!
Sources:
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
CE post 2
The way to advertise sports drinks are clever. They would
pay a well-known athlete to say that their company is the best or to be like me
have Gatorade. This week I will try to answer a question. The question is "Are
sports drinks good for teens?". I am aiming to answer this question with
an opinion of mine. I am going to list some positives and negatives.
Some
positives to sports drinks are that teenagers who are less active in sports and
other activities are less likely to quench their thirst with sports drinks or noncarbonated
flavored drinks. Studies show that "cconsuming sports drinks and other
non-carbonated sugary beverages (such as fruit punch) was also linked to eating
more fruits and vegetables, especially among girls".
Researchers suggests that sports drinks are "HEATHY" alternative to
soda. In my opinion to quench your thirst with sports drink (Gatorade) is
better than quenching your thirst with soda (coke). I still prefer the good
water
Some
negatives to sports drinks are that if you overuse or over drink sports drinks
it can cause more harm than do good. All the sugar in the drinks can dissolve
your teeth. Dr. Mercola states that sports drinks are 30 times more harmful and
erosive to the teeth than water. Sports drinks have costs from $1.50 to $2.50
at grocery stores. So if you consume 2-3 a day, you could be spending over $50.00.
You could be spending money and harming yourself. I am not saying that you should
not have any, I am saying that you should try to limit yourself.
So in
conclusion sport drinks are not good. It is okay to have some every now and
then, just every day and night. Along with the fact that it does not do much
good for your body but also that it is more expensive. So the answer to the
question "Are sports drinks good for teens?" the answer is no. If
your ever thirsty then drink water.
Source/Bibliography
Sarah Klein "Are sports drinks part of
a healthy teen lifestyle?" CNNHealth September 27, 2010 May 16, 2012 < http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/27/health.sports.drinks.teens/index.html>
”Dietary and Activity
Correlates of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption Among Adolescents" May 16, 2012
< http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/09/27/peds.2010-1229.abstract#cited-by>
Ronald Smith - Canadian on US Death Row
Ronald Smith - Canadian on US death row. Should he live?
Here is a man who is Canadian, but committed a crime in the United States. After he committed this crime, he asked to be sentenced to capital punishment. He changed his mind shortly after. This led to 3 decades of time in jail while the State of Montana tries to figure it out. Ronald pleads that he regrets the things he's done, and that he would take it back if he could. He claims that he is a changed man.
I believe that Ronald Smith should live. I believe that Ronald Smith is truly a changed man and he truly regrets killing the two people. This topic directly relates to the question:" Should capital punishment be allowed?". I believe that killing is definitely an unforgivable crime and should not be ignored unpunished, but when the government kills the criminal because the criminal has killed someone, is that not using violence and absolute power to overwhelm the criminal? Capital punishment is no less than killing someone. The government might make it sound better by saying it's the capital punishment, but the truth is that the government kills people when they carry out the capital punishment.
I understand the pain the families must feel towards losing their family members. I also understand the hatred that they must feel towards Ronald. But can't they put down the rage and pain that blinds them and consider the pain that they will cause if Ronald died. Ronald has a family just like them. He has a daughter that is at home pleading everyday for her father to be spared. Ronald's family would suffer as much as the victim's families. It just causes one more family to be in pain.
Hopefully the government will spare Ronald's life and have one less family in pain.
Online Sources:
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Canadian on U.S death row. Should he live?
Ronald Smith, the Canadian on U.S death row. Should he live?
Ronald Smith is the only canadian who is facing execution in the U.S and who has committed two murder in Montana, 1982, and been asked for death penalty, and 30 years later which is now - when capital punishment is gone from nearly all other western democracies - the state of Montana should grant clemency to Mr.Smith.
Mr.Smith has committed two monstrous murders and has destroyed the victims, victims' family and also his daughter who has to live her entire life under the shadow of the death penalty, begged for her father's life to be spared. This caused the Montana's justice system - that invited them to put their pain and emotion at the service of a state with the power to kill, or in opposition to that power - to degrade. (The Canadian on death row should live)
Should Mr.Smith live? My answer is yes. Mr.Smith has committed a murder but now it has been 30 years since he has been in the death row. He and his daughter have gone through as much pain as the victims' family. Yes, the Victims' family had to live with the pain - injuries of their heart by their father, husband's death, and the envy for others who have a father/husband, but Mr.Smith has been in the prison for 30 years - which would have destroyed his body and his emotions - regretting that he has killed. Also his daughter, who had to live under the shadow of death penalty would have given her a lot of pain by the people who looks at her and says "look! she's the daughter of a murderer", and from her beloved father who is in the prison, feeling repentance for him.
The family of the victoms should forgive Mr.Smith. There are a lot of people out in the world who does not have a father/husband not by divorce but also by murders. They also have to win and recover from their pains since they cannot live in that pain for their entire life. That would endanger their children, or even parents. They have to see that Mr.Smith is regretting and begging for one more chance for him to live better. They have to see that Mr.Smith and his family has gone through as much pain as them.
So my opinion is Yes, Mr.Smith should live. He deserves another chance to live and reimburse to the family, and provide kindness to them as they recover from their pains.
Online Resources-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-canadian-on-death-row-should-live/article2421955/
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ronald+Smith+Canadian+consular+official+speak+hearing+death+Canadian/6553907/story.html
Ronald Smith is the only canadian who is facing execution in the U.S and who has committed two murder in Montana, 1982, and been asked for death penalty, and 30 years later which is now - when capital punishment is gone from nearly all other western democracies - the state of Montana should grant clemency to Mr.Smith.
Mr.Smith has committed two monstrous murders and has destroyed the victims, victims' family and also his daughter who has to live her entire life under the shadow of the death penalty, begged for her father's life to be spared. This caused the Montana's justice system - that invited them to put their pain and emotion at the service of a state with the power to kill, or in opposition to that power - to degrade. (The Canadian on death row should live)
Should Mr.Smith live? My answer is yes. Mr.Smith has committed a murder but now it has been 30 years since he has been in the death row. He and his daughter have gone through as much pain as the victims' family. Yes, the Victims' family had to live with the pain - injuries of their heart by their father, husband's death, and the envy for others who have a father/husband, but Mr.Smith has been in the prison for 30 years - which would have destroyed his body and his emotions - regretting that he has killed. Also his daughter, who had to live under the shadow of death penalty would have given her a lot of pain by the people who looks at her and says "look! she's the daughter of a murderer", and from her beloved father who is in the prison, feeling repentance for him.
The family of the victoms should forgive Mr.Smith. There are a lot of people out in the world who does not have a father/husband not by divorce but also by murders. They also have to win and recover from their pains since they cannot live in that pain for their entire life. That would endanger their children, or even parents. They have to see that Mr.Smith is regretting and begging for one more chance for him to live better. They have to see that Mr.Smith and his family has gone through as much pain as them.
So my opinion is Yes, Mr.Smith should live. He deserves another chance to live and reimburse to the family, and provide kindness to them as they recover from their pains.
Online Resources-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-canadian-on-death-row-should-live/article2421955/
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ronald+Smith+Canadian+consular+official+speak+hearing+death+Canadian/6553907/story.html
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
CE Topic Blogging (Bill 36 - Year Round Schooling)
Should Schools Change To Year Round Schooling?
Is this the calendar that we want to work with? The year round calendar has its advantages and disadvantages. The definition of year round schooling is not to increase overall school time, but to spread the school time more evenly along the entire year. We still get the same amount of break time and school time.
Pros:
- Year round(balanced) calendar gives the students less time to forget the things that were previously learned(through long summer break). It is obvious that remembering things from one month ago is easier than recalling things after the long summer break.
- Having the break balanced throughout the year means that each semester or term will be shorter. Doing this gives more breaks throughout the entire year.(Ex. Eating food is good, but it is said that eating more small meals rather than big meals is healthier.)
- Balanced calendar is also better if students want to frequently go on vacations. They do not have to wait for a long term or semester to end to go on vacation.
Cons:
- Balanced calendar gives you a shorter amount of time in each break. Say you were wanting to go see your family in Australia, the airplane ticket would not be cheap. But if you only get one month of break, you would have to come back in a much shorter time. Wouldn't staying there for two months and buying two tickets be better than going there one month and paying the same price?
- Balanced calendar might disrupt certain educational programs that were established long ago. A math program might require five months to complete, but you only have 3 months in a term! How am I going to finish this program! It is probably not that easy to create a completely new program just based on the new calendar.
- The balanced calendar gives less time on a specific course. This means that the course will have to change(probably give less things to do) to fit the new schedule. Or they will have to make the students change their working habits and students will have to work more in a less amount of time.
My Opinion:
To me, the balanced calendar seems a better idea than the calendar we have now. This balanced calendar offers far more possibilities of learning than the standard calendar. I also support the balanced calendar because I don't really need the time in the summer break. There are very few times when I actually use the two months for something constructive. Most of the time, I just end up at home wondering what I can do to fill this time.
Online Sources:
"Year Round Schooling" - Melissa Kelly
"Pros and Cons of Year Round School"
If There Are Questions Or Comments, Feel Free To Post Them!
Reminders
Good job for posting everyone (except Mark). David and Justin were a bit late.
Remember to comment on at least two posts before Friday 10pm
Remember to comment on at least two posts before Friday 10pm
New grading system at U of T
Today, I will be talking about te new grading system at university of Toronto.
I will be talking about the pros and cons about the new grading system and the current grading system.
"The University of Toronto Law wants to make students focus less on marks and more on “intellectual engagement.” (U of T law school adopts new grading system). the current grading system that many other schools have is the letter grade which is leveled A, B, C+, C, C-, F. The the new grading system is the system that does not include letter grades because the U of T law school does not want students to stress on what letter grades they are getting.
The pros about the new grading system is that it may effect the students to not stress out and focus more on the writings, and works they are doing.
"The grouped grading system could be seen as a method of eliminating these worries, saving students from added stress." (No more letter grades at the University of Toronto's law school).
The cons of the new grading system is that it may 'not' help reduce the stress that are troubleing the students. the new grading system can be considered almost the same as the other one, just that the name of the 'letter grades' changed in to high honour, honour, pass, fail...etc.
I, certainly do not think the new grading system will help reduce the stress of students. For many students letter grades are shown as their level of achievment which helps them to study more to get that A+. Also according to the medicine professor Mel Borins
“Students are stressed out mainly around issues of money … whether they’re going to find a job if they do pass all their courses, there’s the stress of family life and their love life, and … the huge workload that sometimes they have to deal with.” (No more letter grades at the University of Toronto's law school) many students does not stress about their grades, they stress out aroud issues of money, their family life, ad love life, and the huge workload.
The Superhero idea, I do not think it will work out very well. First of all it is very childish, and what if the person adores spiderman than superman? Also I would be more stressed if I've got an 'Aquaman' (F) because I would know I've failed and the 'Aquaman' will just annoy me to death.
(A students idea from U of T law school adopts new grading system)
The problem why students may get stress from the 'letter grade' or any sort of grades is because many students compare themselves to others and think they have done terribly, or the parents of theirs will get mad at them for gettng a bad grades. So what I think the school should focus on is teaching them not to compare themselves to others because one is very different from another and has differnt talent, and at least asking the parents not to stress about the mark and flare up to their children.
Online sources:
"U of T law school adopts new grading system"
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/04/23/u-of-t-law-school-adopts-new-grading-system/
"No more letter grades at the University of Toronto's law school"
http://cupwire.ca/articles/52673
I will be talking about the pros and cons about the new grading system and the current grading system.
"The University of Toronto Law wants to make students focus less on marks and more on “intellectual engagement.” (U of T law school adopts new grading system). the current grading system that many other schools have is the letter grade which is leveled A, B, C+, C, C-, F. The the new grading system is the system that does not include letter grades because the U of T law school does not want students to stress on what letter grades they are getting.
The pros about the new grading system is that it may effect the students to not stress out and focus more on the writings, and works they are doing.
"The grouped grading system could be seen as a method of eliminating these worries, saving students from added stress." (No more letter grades at the University of Toronto's law school).
The cons of the new grading system is that it may 'not' help reduce the stress that are troubleing the students. the new grading system can be considered almost the same as the other one, just that the name of the 'letter grades' changed in to high honour, honour, pass, fail...etc.
I, certainly do not think the new grading system will help reduce the stress of students. For many students letter grades are shown as their level of achievment which helps them to study more to get that A+. Also according to the medicine professor Mel Borins
“Students are stressed out mainly around issues of money … whether they’re going to find a job if they do pass all their courses, there’s the stress of family life and their love life, and … the huge workload that sometimes they have to deal with.” (No more letter grades at the University of Toronto's law school) many students does not stress about their grades, they stress out aroud issues of money, their family life, ad love life, and the huge workload.
The Superhero idea, I do not think it will work out very well. First of all it is very childish, and what if the person adores spiderman than superman? Also I would be more stressed if I've got an 'Aquaman' (F) because I would know I've failed and the 'Aquaman' will just annoy me to death.
(A students idea from U of T law school adopts new grading system)
The problem why students may get stress from the 'letter grade' or any sort of grades is because many students compare themselves to others and think they have done terribly, or the parents of theirs will get mad at them for gettng a bad grades. So what I think the school should focus on is teaching them not to compare themselves to others because one is very different from another and has differnt talent, and at least asking the parents not to stress about the mark and flare up to their children.
Online sources:
"U of T law school adopts new grading system"
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/04/23/u-of-t-law-school-adopts-new-grading-system/
"No more letter grades at the University of Toronto's law school"
http://cupwire.ca/articles/52673
Do students really need letter grades?
Do we really need letter grades? Some people say yes when others say no. I will talk about whether we really need these letter grades and the pros and cons of not having letter grades. I will be talking about my point of view and why I think that we do need letter grades.
Universities like law schools of Berkeley, Harvard, Yale and Stanford, all ready have changed their system of marks. University of Toronto Law is thinking of following their example. (A, B+, B, C+, C, D, F) were changed into five broader categories of marks; High Honours, Honours, Pass, Low Pass and Fail. For two years the University of Toronto Law for two years have studied on how to make students less worried about their marks and enjoy what they’re learning. They say that by getting rid of letter grades the students get less stress. But will it really change anything? "Pass/fail system can help reduce students’ anxiety over marks" is what they say. Will it really? Students will just not be aiming for the A. Students would just be aiming for the High Honours. Wouldn't student's still have the stress of trying to get good marks? How will the government know whether it is a good idea to change the marks system?
Pros
Answering some of these question need a little bit of thinking. Some people say that by changing the marking system we are allowing people to excel at what they want and not thinking about the marks. They also say that it is an easier way to categorize people and Alexis Archbold, assistant dean of students says that “it’s good advice for your career”. I found that people who think that this new grading system is a good idea say that it gives them more peace. The people who think that a new grading system is good also think that by making the grading system only into five categories not seven people there will be less stress because of the lack of different marks. Since there is only five categories to go to students have less stress because most people will fall into the same category. People will be able to say “Oh! I passed you only were one category higher than me instead of “Oh! You’re so lucky I only got a D but you got a C.” Aren’t they really the same thing? By dividing the grading system into larger categories people agree there will be less stress because there is less to strive for.
Cons
For me it seems that High Honours, Honours, Pass, Low Pass and Fail marks sounds just more sophisticated than the (A, B+, B, C+, C, D, F). There isn't much of a difference. Either way the students know what it means, and they pretty much have the same amount of stress either way.
I figured out that in the end it’s just the same. The difference between Pass and Honour seem pretty different. High Honours and Honour is like comparing an A+ to and A. There isn’t much of a difference, but a Pass compared to an Honour is quite different. It is similar to a C+ (Which is what I think of an average pass) to an A. It seems to me it give you more stress. Passing and Honours is too much of a jump. It seems like the new grading system is actually asking more from the students. Rebranding is what the new grading system seems to me. It doesn’t matter what happens to the grading system, you know whereabouts each mark is and High Honours sounds just like an A+.
My opinion of the grading system is that there shouldn’t be a change. What is the point? Not all students think the same. Some people could get even more stress from trying to achieve the High Honours. Studies show that the human brain always tries to reach a certain goal. So not matter what the mark is called us humans can’t help but want the best. Pass seems like someone just passed and Honours sound like someone excelled at something. Why are these two right beside each other when there is so much of difference? I think that changing the grading system will do nothing for lessening the amount of stress on students.
Lunch Limits
The stores around Fraser Heights Secondary (Starbucks, Subway, DDDN, etc.) are very fortunate for having us. Why? It is because to them, Fraser Heights Secondary is like a gold mine. If the school were to close down, the stores would lose the hundreds of teenagers buying lunch every day. So why do the teens buy lunch? There are many reasons, including things like forgetting to bring lunch, forgetting to make lunch, and the occasional treat. Most parents/guardians know that they buy lunch and allow them to do it sometimes. Even though parents have given permission, some schools don't trust the parents letting kids buy lunch or even making lunch themselves. They want to prevent obesity and get students to eat healthier. Schools are wanting all of the students to eat in the cafeteria and only the foods they sell. This can cause huge problems because of financial, choice, and other issues.
Some students don't buy lunch not because their parents don't want to waste money or become fat, but it is since that they are in a financial crisis and owe a lot of debts. The other reason is that they are part of the hundreds of new immigrants coming to Canada annually. They wouldn't have a lot of money since they are new to Canada and may have problems buying food. Buying food everyday can make you lose a lot of money and then, people will start eating less, or not eating at all.
Every day I bring food to school to eat, my food is healthy, and I am not obese. I rarely buy lunch, about once a month and that is since my parents don't have time to take me out to restaurants. Most of my friends buy food once a week, sometimes more, but they are not obese either. If the school were to force us to eat in the cafeteria, neither me nor my friends would be able to eat at stores. No donuts, frappuccinos, pizza, or other treats. Only healthy food.
There are other things that could happen if students are forced to eat in the cafeteria. The cafeteria would have to change its menu and make the menu larger for more choice. They would need more cooks and food to provide hundreds of students food. They would also have to rebuild the cafeteria and make it larger to serve food faster. The stores around the school would also have a great decrease in customers. Students and parents would also start protesting since they dislike the way that the school thinks that they have control over the students.
A public school is not a day-care center. We do not pay the school to take care of us, so why would they have the right to control what we eat? That is something a parent needs to do for their child. The better way of solving obesity is being more active (physically). The school could try to get their students to walk/bike to school if they live close. They could also tell students to exercise more, though that usually doesn't work.
In conclusion, schools shouldn't have the right to tell students what to eat and what not to eat, and parents should control their kids more. A good parent would already have given their child restrictions on what they can and cannot do.
Sources:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/04/26/the-state-has-no-place-in-the-lunch-bags-of-a-nation/
Some students don't buy lunch not because their parents don't want to waste money or become fat, but it is since that they are in a financial crisis and owe a lot of debts. The other reason is that they are part of the hundreds of new immigrants coming to Canada annually. They wouldn't have a lot of money since they are new to Canada and may have problems buying food. Buying food everyday can make you lose a lot of money and then, people will start eating less, or not eating at all.
Every day I bring food to school to eat, my food is healthy, and I am not obese. I rarely buy lunch, about once a month and that is since my parents don't have time to take me out to restaurants. Most of my friends buy food once a week, sometimes more, but they are not obese either. If the school were to force us to eat in the cafeteria, neither me nor my friends would be able to eat at stores. No donuts, frappuccinos, pizza, or other treats. Only healthy food.
There are other things that could happen if students are forced to eat in the cafeteria. The cafeteria would have to change its menu and make the menu larger for more choice. They would need more cooks and food to provide hundreds of students food. They would also have to rebuild the cafeteria and make it larger to serve food faster. The stores around the school would also have a great decrease in customers. Students and parents would also start protesting since they dislike the way that the school thinks that they have control over the students.
A public school is not a day-care center. We do not pay the school to take care of us, so why would they have the right to control what we eat? That is something a parent needs to do for their child. The better way of solving obesity is being more active (physically). The school could try to get their students to walk/bike to school if they live close. They could also tell students to exercise more, though that usually doesn't work.
In conclusion, schools shouldn't have the right to tell students what to eat and what not to eat, and parents should control their kids more. A good parent would already have given their child restrictions on what they can and cannot do.
Sources:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/04/26/the-state-has-no-place-in-the-lunch-bags-of-a-nation/
Should post secondary institutions require mandatory physical fitness as part of their educational program?
Should post secondary institutions require mandatory physical fitness as
part of their educational program? All first year students that are part of the
Burnaby polytechnic’s computer programs have mandatory gym time. They are
required to be inside the campus gym by 8:30 a.m. to sign an attendance sheet.
If they don’t attend, they would not graduate even though physical education
has nothing to do with technology. Many find this insulting because they are
the only group of students on campus that are being forced to be physically
active. Now, a petition asking that the mandatory gym class be dropped has
dozens of signed names.
Brian Pidcock, the associate dean in charge of computer students, has a
different point of view from his students. He thinks that forcing the students
to exercise is for their own good. He finds that people tend to sit for hours and
hours in front of a computer, especially in computing. He also said that
programming was very time consuming and tiring so his intentions were good. The
format also offers lots of choices. They can do any exercise or even walk around
the track and it’s not like high school physical education, where you sometimes
are forced to do something you don’t want to. More than 50% of the computer
students disagreed with his point and one presented a petition in his lectures
and labs.
Most students taking computer programs had the opposite point of view of
Brian Pidcock. They thought that it was important to bring fairness and
equality across the board for all BCIT students but it currently has not been
happening. It was something that was not forced upon anyone else. Many said
that they were adults and should be given the option of taking care of their own
health and spending their time. Many also agreed that the practice of isolating
computer students for physical education was based on stereotypes. For these
reasons, the students created a petition.
Both sides of arguments have strong reasons stating either if they want
to continue to have mandatory physical fitness or to not keep the class. Having
the intention to help others stay healthy is great but letting others have
their own decisions on their health is better since everyone has the right to
control their life and choose to have other ways to stay healthy. Since the
petition showed broad- based opposition, a curriculum committee will soon
decide whether to keep the class at all.
Sites Used
CE Post
Recently the government has presented "Bill
36". One of the ideas that’s included in this bill is "year round
school" or "balanced calendar". There are always pros and cons
to every idea, so lets take a look.
Some people think this "balanced
calendar" is great! They believe that by having less time between breaks
(like summer vacation) helps you not to forget everything you learned the
previous year. Most people, (like me) decide to let loose, and not bother
reviewing anything, or try not t o think of the word "school" over
the summer holidays. This is what causes you to forget what u learned. By
having more breaks throughout the year means we will have a shorter summer
vacation giving us less time to forget. Apparently some people think we are
bored through the summer, so after school activities throughout the year will
kill time. This will also make trips more affordable for families since
flights are usually more expensive during the summer, so this makes it easier
and more affordable to take trips not during the same breaks as most other
schools.
There are also just as many cons as pros if
not more AGAINST year round schooling. First of all, camps and or summer
programs will suffer considering how we will have less time in the summer to
actually GO to camp. So eventually they will deteriorate and go out of
business. Secondly, when we are in school during July it will be extremely hot
in the school and especially in the portables, and most schools DON'T have air
conditioning causing us to be very sweaty and uncomfortable during school. Also
some kids' parents work in other school districts causing them to be on totally
different schedules, which will affect the homes of families. Costs will
go up for schools since you will need air conditioning, and use light and such
more often. Lastly, if you have children who are in different schools and only
one is doing year round school, it will be harder to organize vacations both
kids can go to.
I personally think using a
"balanced calendar" isn't the best idea since i agree with most if
not all the cons, but hey, people are entitled to their own opinion.
Sources:
http://childparenting.about.com/od/schoollearning/a/year-round-school-pros-cons.htm
http://712educators.about.com/cs/reformtime/a/yearrounded.htm
http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/pros-and-cons-of-year-round-school-3964.html
Do Students Really Need Letter Grades?
Yes, people may ask, “Why do we need letter grades? Students are
still learning without them.” Letter grades may be essential for you but needless
for others. A new grading system was created in U of T, the argument of if the
system is necessary has presented. So ask yourself. Do we really need letter
grades? Here is the problem, benefits, losses, and how I see it.
University of Toronto spent two years studying on how to reduce students’
stress about marks. They came to a point which they could be the first school
in Canada to substitute the traditional letter grading system to a wider range
of pass and fail. The University of Toronto Law faculty wants to change; they
want a system with categories consisting: High Honours, Honours, Pass, Low
Pass, and Fail. Few law schools in United States like Stanford and Yale already
used a similar system.
According to teachers and leaders of U of T this new grading system can reduce student’s anxiety over their marks. Instead of students worrying if the information is going to be on a test, they want to provide a space in which there is no pressure and students can actually understand more deeply on their learning. From their point of view, their idea is students will learn better without any pressure of marks.
Here is another question asked among people who disagrees with this
idea, “Does this new system really reduce students’ stress?” This new system is
just like the traditional grading system, but with more considerate names. A+
and A to the High Honours, B and C+ to Honours etc… Students are not stressed
over the grading system but over their process in school. It does not matter
how you change the grading system, students will continue to stress about their
grades as long as they are getting a poor mark. Watch the video
First put aside my opinion of the new system, it might be very difficult just to carry out this new system. It is hard to say if any school in Canada is going to follow this new grading system. Honestly, I think the new grading system is unnecessary. Students need a little bit of pressure in order to do well in school, a motivation. I like the traditional system better because you can atleast know more specifically about where your skills and participation in class are at. However this new system cannot tell you precisely where you are at, it is an “about” range. I will be stressed if I get D or F in school but I will also be stressed if I get a low pass or a fail. They are somewhat the same thing, so I think it is pointless to change the system.
Sites I used:
Draft Copies
Guys,
Publish your posts properly.
you guys posted as a draft so I can't see your posts on the actual blog.,
Publish your posts properly.
you guys posted as a draft so I can't see your posts on the actual blog.,
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
CE Writing
This week I am going to be
writing about the pros and cons of the "Year-round" and
"Balanced" calendar. I am going to talk about the definition of
"Year-round" and "balanced" calendars, and the pros and
cons along with what I think.
The definition of the "Year-round" and
"Balanced" calendar is that, like we discussed in class, will not
increase the time we are in school. As we discussed in class there are a
certain numbers of days we have to be in school for and we will still have the
same amount of time in school, it is not like we will have more or less school,
it is just that our breaks will be spread out in different places. One and the
most chosen example of an "Year-round" calendar is 45-15. This means
that students will be in school for 45 days and then gets 3 weeks off not
accounting for weekends. The normal breaks like holidays will be put into the
new calendar.
A couple pros to the "Year-round" calendar are
that some students forget all that they learned over the long summer break,
where as the shorter breaks the students will not forget as much. This system also makes students are
engaged in a number of after-school activities, to kill their boredom, because
the activities would keep them busy during the 3 week break. Now it is possible
for families to plan shorter trips to different places instead of one long trip
once an year. I'm not saying that these are the only advantages, I just listed
a little bit of it.
A couple of arguments
against the "Year-round" calendar are that some schools are older and
do not have air conditioning, so during the summer time the schools are going
to be quite hot. So for people who can't concentrate in the heat is not going
to learn as much or stay on focus as well. An argument against the
"Year-round" calendar is that student are going to forget some
information even if they are out of school for 3 weeks. If a parent has two
children and one of the two children is on the "Year-round" school
system and one is on the "Traditional" school system then it is harder
for the parent to plan a vacation. And like the pros these are not the only
arguments against the "Year -round" calendar.
Right now for me I don’t think it will affect me a lot
but when I need to get a summer job or job experience later on in high school
it may affect me, unless the learning curriculum changes, it will affect me.
Right now, in grade 8, I actually don’t mind the "Year-round" and
"Balanced" calendar. Overall I don’t really like the idea of
"Year-round" calendar, especially because in the summer time I can
barely focus on my work in the heat. So my final answer to the new system is
no. I do not want the new system.
Source/Bibliography
Kelly, Melissa. "Year
Round Education." About.com 8th May 2012
<http://712educators.about.com/cs/reformtime/a/yearrounded.htm>
"Pros And Cons Of Year Round School" iloveindia.com
8th May 2012 <http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/pros-and-cons-of-year-round-school-3964.html>
Monday, May 7, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)