Musings

Fireworks: A Memory From Budapest

2010-07-12T18:35:00.001-04:00

Last week was the first time that I was in Boston for the 4th of July and their fireworks celebration. I thought the fireworks show was really well done: I saw some fireworks that I have never seen before -- and as always the mechanics left me flabbergasted -- and the show was impressively synced to the accompanying music. However, the overall experience left much to be desired, which led me to reminisce about my fireworks experience in Budapest as they celebrated St. Stephen's Day, a national holiday.

St. Stephen's day celebrations start with a festival. At the parliament building there is some reenactment involving a king and his underlings -- dressed in full garment on a hot summer day -- that I don't really understand, since it is in Hungarian, but nonetheless it is entertaining and fun. Also at the parliament square is a long strip of various food and drink venders selling the standard Hungarian specialties, such as Langos (essentially fried dough topped with large amounts of sour cream and cheese). After drinking some lemonade and hanging around, the group decides to look for a restroom. We find one in an art museum and much to our surprise find out that a large number of museums are free on this day of the year. Next, we hear a loud noise and large crowd, which turns out to be jets flying by. But, not just any jets, it is the Blue Angels. They perform a fantastic full length death-defying stunt show, flying up and down the Danube River; it was fantastic. After the performance and entertainment -- which cost no money -- it was time for some relaxation before the night and fireworks.

Budapest is split into two major parts, Buda and Pest, by the Danube River -- much like Boston and Cambridge are split by the Charles. The Buda side contains the rolling hills and open spaces, while Pest is the bustling metropolis. There are many bridges that connect the two sides -- significantly more than connect Boston and Cambridge. We decided to place ourselves on the Buda side of the river and have a picnic up on a hill in front of the castle over looking the river. We had several large blankets strewn over the grass with lots of food and many bottles of wine. The space we had to ourselves was fantastic and this was due in large part to the fact that the fireworks are not just launched from one location, but rather there is a separate show at each one of the bridges. And so the night went with us all full from our dinner, sharing bottles of wine and enjoying fireworks.

This is in stark contrast to the Boston fireworks. I want to share some of the rules for fireworks show in Boston (this is taken from a FAQ on their website):

"What is NOT allowed in the Oval?
Spectators entering the Oval will be required to pass through one of the three bag check/screening entrances. During the screening process, alcoholic beverages, glass containers, tarps larger than 8’ X 10’ and sharp objects (e.g., knitting needles, metal tent spikes, can openers, metal utensils) will not be allowed and will be confiscated. No pets are allowed unless they are service animals."

Seriously? Bag searches... no alcohol... no big tarps... no utensils? And to top it off no pets? Try and tell a Hungarian that they can't drink, eat, and most importantly bring their dog (Hungarians love their dogs). Okay, so you remove all the necessary makings of a nice evening in the park and on top of that you shove the entire population into one small oval, so that there isn't actually any room for everyone. Once you decide where you want to stand bored for the next two hours waiting for the fireworks you can't move, literally. And let us remember that Boston is where the revolution started: Shouldn't there be a bigger better way to celebrate. There were events earlier in the day at the Boston Harbor you could participate in, but only if you wanted to open your wallet and freely spend money. I think we need to take some tips on celebrating from the Hungarians or the rest of Europe for that matter.

Digital Media: Revolutionizing the Television Series

2010-04-23T17:32:00.003-04:00

The structure of the TV show has been drastically altered in recent years requiring viewer loyalty like never before. There is this new genre of TV series that requires the viewer to have significant knowledge of prior episodes in order to appreciate the current one. There are two shows that I am currently infatuated with that serve as excellent examples: Lost and Mad Men.

If someone were sitting at their television flipping through channels and stopped at Lost, they would have only one plausible response: "What the hell is going on?" How can a series bring in new viewers while requiring the knowledge of minute details of every episode ever made? The reason Lost can exist and be successful is due in large part to the advent of digital media (i.e. DVDs, Blu-Rays, Netflix, and the Internet at large). Take me for instance: I began watching Lost after the second season had already finished. I was told that it was a great series and so I got my hands on digital files of the first two seasons and before I knew it I was watching several episodes a day. This luxury allowed me to catch up with the series; I watch it weekly now.

This new way of experiencing a TV series has paved the way for a metamorphosis of its very structure: there is no longer any self containment outside of the series as a whole; a single episode, let alone a single season, cannot exist as a coherent entity separated from the entirety of the series. The TV series becomes much more a piece of literature with the seasons splitting it into parts and the episodes a further division into chapters. The focus has shifted from plot to character development. Take Mad Men for example: It took me a long time to figure out what the show was about, because there is no apparent plot; however, you realize that the show is about the characters; the plot is simply the realization of these characters in their given setting and their interactions with one another. This caught me off guard, I expect exactly this from Russian literature, not television. This is the change; television isn't the mindless plot driven story telling it used to be, but rather an artful presentation of character development.

Furthermore, this evolution will allow a TV series to exist in history like never before. Unlike old TV shows predating the millennium, these new series will not exist in the future as reruns on TBS or Nick-at-Night (does that still exist?), but something people seek out, much like movies or even books. However the experience will provide something different, something even more, than a movie. A single series will require over a 100 hours of viewing time -- a serious dedication. Just think what a great team of artists can do with over 100 hours of film. We now have the first glimpse of this future, which for me has been Lost and Mad Men. We are entering a great era of television -- an odd thing for me to say seeing I don't even have cable.

The Good Old Days

2010-03-16T20:26:00.003-04:00

You hear people talk about the good old days, simpler times, when things were just better, but I can not seem to pinpoint when these days were. Any ideas? The more I think about it the more I realize there are additional qualifier questions: For whom were they better? Where were they better? If you think about it, there is really only one answer to these above questions: western civilized white males. For any other group of people, the thought of the old days usually entails a lack of freedom and equality. Every decade of the past has had an embarrassing violation of basic human rights -- many of which we are still trying to get through. (Also, I will not even bother getting into animal welfare -- where does your food come from?). It then seems selfish, let alone racist, sexist, and homophobic, to consider the existence of the "good old days".

A large factor of what spawned this thought was watching through the TV series Mad Men -- a show depicting the lives of ad men in the early 60's. It is a great view into the role of gender, race, and sexual orientation played during those times. We have come a long way -- a positive long way. There is obviously still much progress to be made in this world, but rest assured we are heading in the right direction. We must continue pushing forward and refuse to see any of the previous lapses in humanity as good -- or even acceptable.

Tech Prep

2010-02-16T19:17:00.006-05:00

What happened to Tech Prep? It seems to be a common belief in America that if we just keep throwing more and more education at everyone, then all of our problems will go away. For a long time this made sense to me. Recently, while reading Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, my view changed. Two characters in the story were discussing what can be done to better the situation of the muzhiks (recently freed serfs) and it is suggested that all will be solved by offering them an education. The other character's response is to ask what good education will do them. The answer: it will offer them new goals. And finally the response: what good are these new goals when they cannot meet them?

Oddly enough, this dialogue, written some 15o years ago, is relevant to the American poor. Again, the American viewpoint appears to be that if we educate the impoverished, then they should succeed; if they do not: it was their fault. Looking past this view is difficult. We tend to over emphasize the cases where the successful come from a poor background and take this as the rule; however, it is the exception. If it were not the exception, then there would be no point in highlighting this success as different from any other. Thus, if an extremely motivated, economically disadvantaged person taking advantage of their education and having succeeded is such an extraordinary feat, why take this as the expectation for our poor?

It should be no secret that environmental factors have a huge effect on the success of a student. The question becomes whether or not proposing such lofty educational goals for everyone is beneficial or hindering progress by setting up the disadvantaged for failure. Take a look at the following graph:

The low-income students scoring on the same level as the high-income -- even the middle-income -- are showing a significantly lower college success rate. The rationale behind educating the low-income youth, in hopes that they become successful college graduates, is flawed; it may sound good in theory, but practically it ignores the impact of the environment.

I do think that a state in which everyone is college educated would be ideal and furthermore, is a good goal. However, it must be accomplished by the appropriate means. The appreciation and success of education is clearly linked to socio-economic status, hence, we should aim to decrease poverty and then increase education. Increasing education to decrease poverty leaves people shooting to high and landing back at the bottom. What do we do? We must offer the people a career with a respectable salary.

This is when I start to wonder what ever happened to tech prep. Why not offer students a (profitable) skill. The over emphasis on preparing all students for college and making this the expectation has devalued the skilled laborer. Why should we look negatively at those who rely on their hands for a living? For one thing, they probably make more money than me (a teacher), even though I completed a four year degree. This relates to something said briefly in a previous post: we do not recognize the social value of the citizen in the United States; we focus too heavily on who can accrue the largest investments.

If we want to help those in poverty and increase the overall level of education, then we should focus on offering our citizens a trade. The focus on reducing unemployment will better the environment of the poor -- this includes the reduction of crime, which is intimately linked with unemployment. As the socio-economic status of low-income families increases so will their education level.

This is not a novel idea. All one needs to do is look at any socialized European country; the gap between high- and low-income is significantly lower. Furthermore, they are, on average, better educated. Maybe, just maybe, its not good enough to just say: "Well, the opportunity was there."

Time

2010-02-05T18:23:00.003-05:00

Time is weaved into our existence so deeply that we never tend to notice it; sure, we check what time it is, but do we ever really think about time? Imagine if a child innocently asked you to define time: could you do it? You could conjure up an explanation about the passage of time; however, to really define what time is, well, is difficult. Time happens to be elusive when you attempt to grasp its very nature. Our understanding of time comes from our very experience of it, which happens to lead us to a misunderstanding - as Einstein showed us.

For me, I spend too much of my time thinking about time. Time is a serious challenge for me in my life in two ways: scientifically/philosophically and personally. I would like to discuss these here.

First, without a notion of time we could not describe anything scientifically nor could we understand anything philosophically. You would be strapped to find a scientific theory that did not rely on the passage of time in some way. This is because our world revolves around movement. Imagine describing movement without a temporal notion; our language does not allow for it. Similarly, philosophy relies on logic. A logical argument requires premises, deductions (from the premises), and a conclusion in that order. Here, again, we reach this temporal notion through order: the processing of the deductions must precede the conclusions. It is evident that the one must come before the other. Now our tools, philosophy and science, at our disposal to study time inherently rely on time - not a promising situation.

It appears that trying to study the nature of time is akin to proving a postulate of geometry using the postulates themselves. We may need to think of time, as itself, a postulate of nature. In which case the best we can do is assume time has always been. Maybe, the question of how time was created is nonsensical; it was never created; it has always been. Maybe, we can never understand the fabric of time, rather only investigate the properties of this fabric. In this realm, progress has been made.

I would like to discuss this progress here - as it is at the heart of almost everyone's misunderstanding of time. Time moves; it flows. This much is clear. Furthermore, it appears clear that it moves only in one direction. This is something very difficult to show. This topic is discussed quite frequently in popular science writing (look for discussions on the arrow of time and entropy). Physicist seem to be confident that there exist physical processes (i.e. entropy) that show time moves only in one direction - sorry, no travelling backwards in time (maybe). Another feature that we take for granted is that time moves at the same pace for everyone; this is wrong. The idea of time being invariant for all observers is what defines Newtonian mechanics. On the other hand, abandoning this notion provides us with Einsteinian mechanics. One of Einstein's many contributions to physics was to realize time is relative; but, the speed of light is constant. The speed at which time flows is relative. This is special relativity - the faster you move, the slower time moves. (This will sound bizarre: but, if you were to move at the speed of light then time would effectively stop!) This ultimately leads to the realization that space and time are intimately linked - the discovery of spacetime. We do not live in a three dimension world; the universe is, in actuality, a four dimensional manifold (and it can even bend - as posited by Einstein's general relativity). I think this puts a dagger in the heart of the idea that time is man made; it is fundamental to the universe.

Other than my scientific curiosity, I have personal challenges with time. Despite the seemingly infinite span of time, I can only claim a finite amount of it. I do not have a problem with this fact; however, I have difficulties with the appropriate rationing of it. I find that I take the question "what time is it?" and translate its answer to "how much time do I have left". This thought process creates great stress for me and cripples me from enjoying my time. The magnitude of this has increased greatly as my free time has decreased as a function of having a career. So as my free time counts down, I find it difficult to decide how to spend it and ultimately waste it. After realizing this cycle, I decided to make it my New Year's resolution to not pay attention to the time (during my free time that is). This is more of a challenge that you would thing: the time is on my watch, my phone, my computer, my tv, my microwave, my car, my stereo; the list goes on. Why is the world so determined to make sure I know what time it is all the time? Anyways, I have been doing a fair job of not knowing the time and I feel liberated. Without the worry of knowing the time, I find myself willing to spend my time on whatever it is I desire and do not feel as though I am wasting my time. I am more satisfied with what I am doing as I worry less about what I feel as though I ought to be doing. With this schedule, I happen to even do more of those things that I feel I should be doing; I own my time.

An American Question

2010-01-31T16:02:00.003-05:00

It does not require much time in American education to realize there is a common question pervading the student body: "why do I need to know this?" The idea of this question being solely American developed after a coworker, originally from India, shared an anecdote about her first interview where she was asked how she would respond if this question was put to her in a classroom. This was the first time she learned that a student would think about asking an instructor such a question. I followed this up with my girlfriend and she informed me that looking back at her time in the French education system that this question of "why" was never asked.

Why is this question so pervasive amongst American students? I think this question says quite a lot about our cultural viewpoint on education. When my girlfriend was discussing her experience in France, she made the comment that "I'm sure the kids thought about the question of why they were learning the material, but they knew the answer they would be given if they actually asked." The answer would have been because it is on the baccalaureate exam. The baccalaureate exam in France is essentially the sole determination of your educational path post high school. Notice that there is a connection here between the way France and India conducts their university level education admittance. Americans, on the other hand, view all levels of education as a birthright. Regardless of a student's intellectual ability, they will not have a difficult time being accepted to an university, due to our commodification of higher level education. (I've blogged about this topic in Quantity vs. Quality previously).

This way we have of conducting education leads us to devalue the importance of knowledge. In the end one views a degree as simply a monetary investment to the betterment of their future, not through using what one has learned, but simply by owning a university degree. This is somewhat ironic, since the United States as a democratic republic relies on an educated populace (I feel like I should make a snide remark about the Republican party here, but I will refrain).

It is time we raise the social value of education in America. If we expect our students to care enough about school to not ask "why do I need to know this," we first need to show that we reward and revere intellectual success just as much as monetary success, if not more. It is not universal that school politics peg the dumb bully as the top of the social hierarchy, but rather American. As the United States falls lower and lower in education when compared to Europe, it will only be a few generations when we discover we have made a grave error.

In order for this change to happen, we must stop handing out university certificates of graduation to those who are willing to pay. Graduating from a university should require real academic achievement. In this case, we will find that not everyone will opt to attend to college. This is all right, because along with a society that values education comes a society that values skilled labor. Imagine, a society that values its members for its role in society and not solely their personal achievements. This is what we should be aiming for.

You Can't Teach an Old Dog New Tricks

2009-12-01T21:09:00.004-05:00

As someone looking to enter the field of mathematics, I am often told how most mathematicians do all their best work by the age of 30. And then of course after that, you have little chance of making any significant contribution to the field. The standard explanation for this is that people hit their creative peak in their early 20's and it decreases from there. (Yes, mathematics is a very creative field!) However, I am starting to see this in a different way.

Instead of viewing the young mathematician's success as a matter of creativity, I think it might be a matter of stupidity. Well, maybe not actual stupidity, but a lack of mathematical knowledge. I believe that what hinders older mathematicians is their massive amount of knowledge. This may sound odd, but after so much exposure and experience it becomes habit to look at problems through the lense of what you know and using the same methods repeatedly rather than considering problems from new angles and approaches. This is the advantage of the young mathematician for he/she looks at a problem with a blank slate and is willing to consider approaches the veterans might not. It seems to me that a young talented student's lack of knowledge is what spawns their creativity. As the saying goes, you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Math: Who Needs It?

2009-11-04T16:18:00.003-05:00

As my girlfriend prepared to take the GRE's (the standardized test used for admissions to graduate study in the United States) using the Princeton Review's text, she came across and interesting sentiment held by ETS (the creators of the GRE). As the Princeton Review relates it, it is the view of ETS that the mathematics section of the GRE can not test any math knowledge above and beyond what was taught during high school, because it would be unfair to assume a college graduate took any courses relating to mathematics after high school. I think this statements does a good job of revealing the view of mathematics in America.

Now remember that the students taking the GRE are those whom plan to become the most educated in America through their graduate studies. What does this imply? It seems that it is the common held belief (since most graduate schools in liberal arts require the GRE) that it should not be the responsibility of the most highly educated, the academics, the intelligentsia to understand anything about mathematics but the minimal algebra skills gained in a high school curriculum (not even Calculus!!!!). This is the embarrassing state of the mathematical educational philosophy pervading throughout the country. How could we, as a nation, possibly be surprised that all the other industrial countries outperform us in math and science?

Furthermore, if it is truly the viewpoint of ETS that it would be unfair to expect a college graduate to take a math course, then extending their logic, why would it be fair to expect a student dedicated to mathematics to take an English course? It is very clear that the verbal section of the GRE is at a higher level than a high school graduate. As someone who reads quite often, I have not seen more than half the words they expect me to know in order to score well on their exam. However, I have spent four years learning a profound vocabulary in mathematical terms. Why do they not test me if I can define the terms metric, continuity, or manifold? It would seem to me, that through using ETS's own logic we can determine that their test is unfair as it currently stands, so they mine as well make a math section that requires the intellectual elite to at least understand calculus, a tool that our understanding of the world is built on.

Blackout!

2009-10-30T17:35:00.002-04:00

On Wednesday evening I was sitting on my couch reading a book. This is just about the least technological thing I could think of me really doing. Then the electricity went out. It was rainy and so there was not much light (let alone it gets dark early now). There I was in the dark... unable to even read a book.

It was one of those moments that makes you take a step back and consider the reliance we have on technology. After the lights went off, I spent the next 45 minutes lying down listening to the rain simply because there was nothing else I could do. This was a pleasant time as rain is nice to listen to, but I could not imagine this being the standard on a nightly basis. What did people do before electricity?

I also began to wonder what everyone else thinks about when the electricity goes out. I have had the opportunity to study electrodynamics from an engineering and physics stand point and have a conception of how all the technology that runs my everyday life works. I could not imagine not having any idea how everything I use works. Is it a complete mystery when things don't work right or if the electricity goes out? What does one do without an understanding? It must be that you throw your hands up and simply view it as an unfortunate twist in fate and leave it to an unknown benevolent force to fix it. What a strange sentiment.

Education: Quantity vs. Quality

2009-10-26T18:00:00.003-04:00

It is now expected of graduating high school students to continue their education at the university level. This was not the case just a few decades ago. Is the change a good one?

During one of my classes today, I overheard two of my senior students discussing attending college the next year. Given the performance of these students at school, I had felt they would struggle getting accepted into a college. However, the tone of their conversation gave me the impression that being accepted was not an issue, especially since they have been receiving mail from various colleges. It made me realize that anyone can get into college, because as long as you are willing to pay for it there is a school willing to take your money.

We have created a system where we expect our students to get a college education and they expect to be given one. There is as much supply as there is demand. Furthermore, the educational institutions are more businesses than schools, so in this capitalistic model, the students are customers. Thus, it is the universities top priority to satisfy their customers needs, i.e. completion of a degree. In this way the curriculum is made easier and the grading system generous to make sure the customer continues to be enrolled.

This method produces more and more college graduates, but less well educated then they would have been if their merit was more important then their money. Is it a surprise the educated citizens of foreign countries are smarter and more qualified than ours? The education in most other countries is free or inexpensive, but highly competitive. Is quantity better than quality? This would appear to be the US's philosophy when it comes to educating its citizens.

Are our students better off with the college degree that they just paid thousands of dollars for? How many people use their degrees? Also, what careers really need a degree, because it seems like this is a precursor to even menial jobs? I do not have the answers to these questions, but if I had to venture a guess, there are a lot of college degrees granted that serve mostly as an expensive wall hanging.

I believe a model of education that revolved more around skill training would suit the needs of our students better. I love the idea of the liberal arts degree, but it does not fit the needs of everyone and they should not feel societal pressure to receive one.

If You Are Not Rich, Then the U.S. Is Not For You!

2009-10-20T18:48:00.003-04:00

The other night I went to dinner in the Boston area and after spending $70 for two people to get a main dish and a small glass of wine I quickly began to miss Europe. A person in the U.S. must be wealthy in order to live like a middle class European. If you are able to dodge the tourist restaurant, it is feasible to have a meal and wine, without sacrificing quality or quantity, for relatively cheap in European cities. I find it humorous to picture a French person in the United States being handed a Bud Light and being charged several dollars. Why must it be distinctively American to drink bad beer and grossly overpay for decent wine ($7 a glass... how about 2 euros for 0.25 L)?

But in all seriousness, the U.S. is the richest nation in the world but has proportionally twice as many adults living below poverty than France, Germany, and Italy (19% versus 8%). Furthermore, 1 out of every 4 of American children in the US live in poverty. This is only 1 out of 10 for Western European countries. Also, the bottom 10% of citizens of America are worse off than the bottom %10 of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland (facts taken from Peter Singer's The President of Good & Evil: Questioning the Ethics of George W. Bush).

The United States is a great place for a small number of rich people, but for the rest there is a better life elsewhere. Europeans work less, have more vacation time, receive a better education, and are given free health care. Yes, they do have to pay taxes, but their quality of life makes up for it.

It is time for change in the States.

ETS: A Monopoly

2009-10-12T19:19:00.003-04:00

The Educational Testing Service, affectionately known as ETS, is responsible for creating, administering, and grading such tests as the SAT and the GRE. ETS is an organization that everyone interested in an US college education must face. After taking the Mathematics Subject GRE this weekend I was reminded how poorly this organization is run. However, students interested in a post-graduate degree have no choice, but to take the GRE. High school students on the other hand are fortunate enough to have a competing exam, the ACT. The ACT is quickly gaining favor in the Southern and Midwestern part of the country, but it is slow in taking its market share of the Northeast. Regardless, the GRE has no competition.

The GRE (the Graduate Record Exam) is in general required by all the top universities in order to be considered for admission. This leaves ETS with a monopoly on graduate school admissions testing. The lack of competition in this arena is clear to anyone that has had to deal with ETS and their GRE test. This is first evident by the price of the GRE, which sits at the hefty sum of $150. Furthermore, a large portion of disciplines require a GRE subject test (a test specific to a discipline), which is again another $150. For this fee however, ETS is kind enough to send your scores to your choice of four schools. But, if you plan to apply to more than just four schools, well then you are going to have to buck up and pay ETS an additional $20 per school in order for them to mail your scores. Why is this not electronic and free? That is a good question. ETS does not provide any electronic records of your scores and everything must be handled through mail or phone, because they have a website and server which must date back to the early 90's. They do have a rudimentary online system in which you can order and send your additional scores, but good luck. Also, from what I gather, you have about a 10% chance of that additional report never being sent.

So what can be done? Well, of course the end user has no authority, because ETS has no competition and hence is not interested in bettering its service. ETS needs some kind of motivation, which can only be brought on by a competing exam. But, in order to create a competing exam, one would need to convince all the major universities to switch their requirements over from the GRE. The universities have no motivation for such a decision. All of ETS's charges are paid by the students, hence the universities have no complaints. They have no financial burden and yet receive test scores which compare their prospective students to the rest of nation.

Unfortunately, there can be no formal complaint against ETS, because they are a legal monopoly. They do not partake in any behavior that is an unfair to competitors. The only solution I see is a boycott on ETS. Either through students or institutions. If no one agreed to take these exams, universities would still need to consider candidates and ETS would lose. The chances of such a boycott seem low. In the meantime, I will await ETS's response to my complaint I sent via email. I won't hold my breath.

Size Does Matter

2009-10-08T18:18:00.004-04:00

As a first year high school teacher in mathematics, I have quickly realized that the size of a class makes an enormous difference. I have three main math courses, two of those classes consist of 19 students and the third has only 7. For many schools, 19 students to a class would be small, but at the risk of sounding spoiled I will call 19 students large.

In the small classroom setting, the environment is very relaxed. The students and myself are on a much more personal basis. This lends itself well to a teaching style that focuses more on guiding the students through the material as opposed to direct lecture or even pushing the students through. The relationship with the students allows the lesson to be molded much more to fit every one's individual needs, which assures no student is left behind. This actually permits the class to move faster. This is because with each progression through a lesson, each student understands the material, which means I, the instructor, do not need to retrace our steps repeatedly.

On the other hand, when teaching the larger classes I feel as though I have much more of an authoritarian role in which too much of my attention must go to keeping order. Furthermore, each class only has a limited amount of time, hence if multiple students need individual attention, someone will inevitably lose. This missed opportunity will only snowball unless the student seeks additional help outside the classroom. At first glance, this seems to be a valid solution, however it requires the student actually seek help, which may not be very likely. In this system, it is easy for a student to fall behind unnoticed until the grades are out and it is too late.

These perceptions are further enhanced by the fact that the group of smaller kids are those that are more comfortable with mathematics and thus more naturally motivated to do well. But, if it seems so apparent that a small classroom really allows the teacher to help the students, should it not be those that need the additional guidance that have the small class size?

There is much debate in the US about what can be changed with our education system to make it better. There are proposed solutions everywhere, many with little results. But, why are we not making classrooms smaller and allowing the teachers to teach. A teacher can not be as effective with a large classroom. It seems like such a simple suggestion, yet there are still schools with classes seating more than 30 students. Before we try any extravagant overhauls, lets try making the classroom size smaller, regardless of what the cost may be.

The next obvious questions would be: "How big is too big and how small is too small?" I will not pretend to have the answer, but I would be curious to discover where these critical points live. I do believe a class can be too small, because it is important for the students to have peers to work with and learn from, as well as to be competitive with. My best guess would be at least 3 or 4 students in the smallest of classes. On the other hand, for a class that is too large, I do not have the experience to judge, but I would expect effectiveness for a class size would begin to decline with more than 12 students.

Persepolis: A Window into My Own Ignorance

2009-10-06T18:04:00.005-04:00

As I began reading Persepolis, the autobiographical graphic novel by Marjane Satrapi, it quickly became apparent that I am completely ignorant about Iran. However, I think there is an overwhelmingly large percentage of westerners that are just as ignorant as I. I can assume this based on two things: first, that if it were not true, it would be difficult for me to be so ignorant, and second, enlightening people like myself was the goal of this book.

I can not speak on behalf of the western world as a whole, but as an American, I often equate Iran and Iraq in my head, thinking of Iran as another oil rich middle-eastern fundamentalist Arabic nation with a crazy leader and next in line on the American war path. At the surface, much of these adjectives are not far from the truth, however they very much represent a small percentage of extremists that hide the rich Iranian culture and history that lives on in its citizens.

First some simple facts. Iranians are not Arabs. They are modern day Persians and have never actually gotten a long with the Arabic world, especially Iraq. They speak a modern version of Persian, often referred to as Farsi. Iran has only been an Islamic Republic for 30 years. Yes, it is embarrassing I did not know these simple things, but I bet most Americans would get these questions wrong if asked randomly.

Before Iran became an Islamic Republic in 1979, it had a secular liberalized government and was in the midst of modernizing and westernizing itself. Prior to 1950, the British had control over the Iranian oil industry and profited enormously while providing Iran only 20% of the profits. In 1951, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, a western educated politician, was elected as prime minister through a democratic process. During his short time in power, he took the initiative to nationalize the Iranian oil industry, shutting out the British. This allowed Mossadegh to gain tremendous popularity amongst the population. The Brits retaliated by attempting to create a world wide boycott on Iranian oil. As their attempt to force Iran to return control to Britain failed, they turned to the US for help.

The reasons for which the United States ended up helping the Brits is highly debated. The US had great interest in the oil industry, which through helping England eventually led to approximately 40% control in the Iranian oil industry. However, it is also speculated that the US was even more motivated due to the Cold War and the suspicions that the Iranians were tending towards communism. It is most likely the case that both these motivations led the US to their actions to help Great Britain remove Dr. Mossadegh from office. In 1953, the CIA went through with Operation Ajax, which removed Dr. Mossadegh from his post and replaced him with Gen. Zahedi and reinstating the former Shah. This led to the arrest, imprisonment, and sentence to death of Mossadegh (though he ended up serving three years in solitary confinement in a military prison and then living out the rest of his life under house arrest). With this arrangement, the British regained majority control in Iranian oil and as mentioned above the US was given approximately 40%.

It was only a matter of time until this installed government fell. The next party to take power was the fundamentalist Islamics through the Iranian Revolution (also known as the Islamic Revolution), leaving a previously advancing nonsecular country in the hands of extremism. It is this point in time where Marjane Satrapi in the first volume of Persepolis makes it her goal to stress the fact that this belief in extremism was the minority and the people did rebel. However, in the end, those with the power make the rules.

The citizens of Iran have still not given up hope towards moving forward again. Just this year there was a public election in Iran. Inevitably it was rigged. However, there was a enough support for change that the results of the polls sent the citizens to the streets in protest.

Where would Iran be today if we never infiltrated and overthrew their government for our own ideological and monetary interests? Would you trust us?

One Small Step Towards Saving the World - Charity: Water

2009-10-04T11:53:00.007-04:00

As the society we live in tends towards a global one, our moral duties must also shift to a global scale. This is an extremely difficult task for a population built to think locally. It is hard to comprehend how one's small decisions could create a global impact.

After reading Peter Singer's One World, I realized that it is time to step up and donate to charity. When it comes to foreign developmental aid, the US ranks amongst the lowest in its support. A long while back, the United Nations requested nations to allocate 0.7 percent of their GNP to foreign aid. No country has lived up to this, especially the US, which currently only gives 0.1 percent of its GNP. In US dollar equivalence, this turns out to be less than Japan provides even though the US economy is approximately twice that of Japan's.

Furthermore, the US citizenry is completely oblivious to this fact. In several polls asking US citizens what percentage of the federal budget is dedicated to foreign aid and how much should be dedicated, the median response for the value currently dedicated was 20% and 10% as what should be dedicated. The actual figure is less than 1%! This misconception was even seen when the poll data was filtered to consider only those with a post-graduate degree, which resulted in a median estimate of 8% of the federal budget being dedicated to foreign aid.

Singer puts the ethical challenge to the citizens of the world to donate from their own funds, since our governments are failing to do so. Though it is hard to put an exact value on how much one should donate, Singer gives an estimate of 1% of your salary, a sum that would result in a very large benefit to the developing world.

As a result, this is my goal. I am choosing to use the 1% mark for myself as I have not seen any other estimates and it also a very reasonable amount to ask for. My first donation was to an organization called Charity: Water (http://www.charitywater.org), a group bringing clean water to those areas in need. There is currently 6 billion people in the world without access to clean water (this is 1 in every 6 people), which is astonishing. Just the lack of clean water leads to so much disease and death, which is what attracted me to this charity. Also, they guarantee 100% of your donation goes to helping produce clean water for those locations that do not have access to it. Also, they provide you with the nice fact that a $20 donation will provide a single person in Africa for clean water for 20 years!

Though I have my monthly donation set up for Charity: Water, I have not dedicated my whole 1% to them. I am on the lookout for another charity that will help further women's rights in the world. This idea at first glance seems unconventional as a charity idea, when one thinks about all the starving people. However, they are apparently closely linked. For more details on the connection between women empowerment and the overall good of the developing world, read the article The Women's Crusade by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23Women-t.html?_r=2).