Well, I have had a good month off from grading papers. And though I have thought about new posts, this is the first time I have sat down to write one. As soon as I did I remembered one of the last things we read in English 12 this year, and some of the odd responses to a short answer question from the final exam.
The book is Lord of the Flies, and the question was, "Who is the hero of the novel?" Students had to provide support for their choice. Most of the students gave responses I would expect: Ralph, because he tries to maintain order and common sense; Piggy, because he is logical and wants to be rescued; Simon, because he is the only one that really cares about others.
But a few students decided that Jack was the hero. Jack, the homicidal, blood thirsty, self-obsessed, power hungry psychopath. Remember him? And their reason was because the fire he started is what got them rescued by the passing Navy ship. In case you don't recall the novel, Ralph is the one who tries to convince everyone of the importance of keeping a signal fire lit. Jack spends the novel focused on killing a pig; hunting becomes his monomania and he frequently dismisses the signal fire as unimportant. Further, the "fire" he starts that gets the boys rescued begins as an attempt to smoke Ralph out of a thicket so he can be tortured and killed. This fire then rages out of control, burning up the vegetation of the whole island, including the fruit trees that were the best food source. The fact that a passing ship sees the smoke is the purest coincidence.
This, to me, is a classic example of poor thinking about ends and means. And I began to wonder as I read those responses where this kind of thinking originated. Why would a few of my students be quick to ignore Jack's murderous intentions just because his means had positive, yet entirely unintended, consequences? I am no lawyer, but I would imagine that in any court of law Ralph would still be found guilty of attempted murder; his intent was clear. Yet these students think that because he accidently attracted rescuers he must be the hero, even though he shows contempt for the idea of being rescued throughout the entire novel.
It has been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Chesterton counters that intentions for good are about the only thing the road to hell can't possibly be paved with. But I do not quite know what to make of these teenagers who somehow manage to believe the road to heaven can be paved with murderous intentions.
7/31/11
6/23/11
Survey Says
Every year in June I give my students a survey of sorts about the year in English class. In this post I share some of the more interesting or humorous responses. Take from them what you will. I have for a few questions distinguished the College English class from the rest, because College English really is a different class. The students can get credit at the local community college for the class, and I run the class more like a college class than a high school one. As always, my comments are in ( ).
Directions: Do you really need directions at this point?
* Yes I really do.
What was your favorite work that we read this year and why?
- The Lord of the Flies because it was actually in English, not all the confusing British stuff. (Everything in English 12 was British Literature.)
- I didn’t like any of them. The short stories were all depressing, the poems were written by crazy people, and Shakespeare makes my head hurt.
- I liked The Importance of Being Earnest best because it was humorous. I don’t think I’ve read anything else for school that made me laugh more than once or twice. It was such a change from what we usually read in school, even if several people in the class did not seem to grasp the humor.
- I liked the short story unit because the stories were short. (And the inventor of the short story rests easily in his grave.)
What was your least favorite work of literature we read this year and why?
- The Scarlet Letter because it sucked out my soul.
- Macbeth, because I’m not British.
- Any of the sonnets because we had to interpret them.
- The sonnets because I forgot to read them.
What did you like the most about College English?
- I loved how we spent a lot of time talking about what we were working on and then it turned into a weird topic.
- I liked being more independent.
- I liked that it felt like we had more freedom with our writing.
- I liked the freedom of being able to write about whatever we wanted most of the time.
- I liked the freedom we had to choose our own topics to write about, and that we were given the opportunity to turn in rough drafts of our papers.
- It was very independent. For the most part we had a choice of what we wanted to write about.
- The independent aspect, how we didn’t have to constantly check in.
- We had the freedom of choosing the topics we wanted to write about. (Seeing a pattern? This kind of freedom is almost never granted to high school students, which is why they are often so uninterested.)
- I liked that you were very honest with us and told us exactly what you were thinking – especially in regards to our papers.
- It wasn’t like a normal class. We didn’t have to raise our hands and it was more like an open discussion. (I always hated having to raise my hand in school.)
- We had to think; every other class I’ve had this year has required me to simply memorize facts to ace tests, but because we only had essays, I had to rely on my own thoughts and interpretations to do well in this class.
- The freedom to get out of the class exactly what you put into it.
- My favorite thing was how I wrote many papers and hopefully I can recycle these papers next year.
- Brutal honesty. No beating around the bush in Mr. Chaffee’s class. I did enjoy the volume of writing as well, even if you don’t think so.
What did you like the least about English this year?
- I did not like how there were no multiple choice questions, I actually had to think to answer questions. (That’s too bad, really, having to think.)
- The constant fear of failing essays.
- People who complained about your jokes because they couldn’t understand them. (I know, I hate that too.)
What have you learned in English this year?
- Always pay attention!
- A lot of things that really aren’t relevant to English. (But I hope they are relevant to life.)
- Girls get angry when you forget their names; 2 out of 3 men know when to shut up. (There were only three men in his class!)
- Mr. Chaffee grades harder than any other English teacher! (I try; after all, you're a senior!)
- Stuff
- What redundant means. (I wrote that word on her papers many times.)
- I have learned how it’s not good to procrastinate because it affects your essays.
- That potty training a three year old is a b_____. (That's my three-year-old, not his... I hope.)
- Good thought is better than a correct idea with no work or thought behind it. An answer that isn’t necessarily right is worth it for the work and growth behind it.
- I learned that there’s no sense in using a $20 word when you can get the same idea across using $1 words, and it’ll cost less. I also learned what I’m capable of when it comes to writing.
Did your teacher give you enough feedback on papers, etc.?
- Yes, I think the 60s I received were quite clear.
- Oh yes, quite enough feedback. My essays displayed much green ink.
Do you believe you have improved as a writer this year?
- Yes, because in past years they taught us to write a certain way, where this year my teacher pointed out my mistakes instead of saying my format was wrong. (This is the danger of teaching to the test, EVEN if the test includes an “essay.” Our students only learn to write boring, empty, formulaic essays.)
- Yeah, because you edited the crap out of my essays. (I wouldn’t have to if there weren’t so much crap in there to begin with!)
- I do believe my skills at writing and literary analysis improved greatly. Your opinion may be entirely different though, and since you’re the only one with a degree in this area, your opinion wins. (Indeed it does.)
- I think I have improved. I used to not be able to write a 3 page essay on one topic, but now I can do it while actually sounding somewhat intelligent.
- Yes, I learned how to write correctly rather than write for the Regents. (Regents = State exam.)
- I think so, but I believe if I wanted to I could’ve put in more effort.
- Yes, I don’t make such grandiose, empty statements, for the most part.
- I was really wordy before this class, and now I’m only moderately wordy.
Did College English affect how you read literature?
- I don’t think it helped because the SAT told me I can’t read.
- No. I’m pretty good at reading. I still read from left to right until the end of one line, then I go to the next line. At the end of the page, wait for it, I go to the next page!
Do you think College English was on a college level?
- Yes, the workload was intense. (You’re telling me. I had to grade all that stuff.)
- You realize you are asking this of high schoolers?
- Yes and no; yes because of the curriculum, and no because we’re high school seniors and no matter how hard you try you can never cure senioritis. (I could, but the cure isn’t “legal.”)
Do you have any suggestions about how to make the class better?
- Maybe take out the reading, assignments, quizzes, tests, and essays.
- More movies and more research papers. (More research papers? By the way, this was from a regular English 12 student who did not write nearly as many papers as the College English students.)
- Allow students to choose what to do for their final project. Let it be anything that could relate to what had been done during the year. Like maybe composition of several different types of poetry, or a study of the court manners from the era of Hamlet. That sort of thing. (This was from a College English student; it's a good idea...)
Is there anything you would like to say on any topic whatever?
- I would not want to have your job.
- You weren’t a horrible teacher. I did learn a few things that might be helpful in the future. Thank you. (At least I wasn’t horrible.)
- I like pie.
I also like pie. Hope you are all enjoying the summer. I plan more posts this summer with some of my odd ideas about education, such as they are.
J
Directions: Do you really need directions at this point?
* Yes I really do.
What was your favorite work that we read this year and why?
- The Lord of the Flies because it was actually in English, not all the confusing British stuff. (Everything in English 12 was British Literature.)
- I didn’t like any of them. The short stories were all depressing, the poems were written by crazy people, and Shakespeare makes my head hurt.
- I liked The Importance of Being Earnest best because it was humorous. I don’t think I’ve read anything else for school that made me laugh more than once or twice. It was such a change from what we usually read in school, even if several people in the class did not seem to grasp the humor.
- I liked the short story unit because the stories were short. (And the inventor of the short story rests easily in his grave.)
What was your least favorite work of literature we read this year and why?
- The Scarlet Letter because it sucked out my soul.
- Macbeth, because I’m not British.
- Any of the sonnets because we had to interpret them.
- The sonnets because I forgot to read them.
What did you like the most about College English?
- I loved how we spent a lot of time talking about what we were working on and then it turned into a weird topic.
- I liked being more independent.
- I liked that it felt like we had more freedom with our writing.
- I liked the freedom of being able to write about whatever we wanted most of the time.
- I liked the freedom we had to choose our own topics to write about, and that we were given the opportunity to turn in rough drafts of our papers.
- It was very independent. For the most part we had a choice of what we wanted to write about.
- The independent aspect, how we didn’t have to constantly check in.
- We had the freedom of choosing the topics we wanted to write about. (Seeing a pattern? This kind of freedom is almost never granted to high school students, which is why they are often so uninterested.)
- I liked that you were very honest with us and told us exactly what you were thinking – especially in regards to our papers.
- It wasn’t like a normal class. We didn’t have to raise our hands and it was more like an open discussion. (I always hated having to raise my hand in school.)
- We had to think; every other class I’ve had this year has required me to simply memorize facts to ace tests, but because we only had essays, I had to rely on my own thoughts and interpretations to do well in this class.
- The freedom to get out of the class exactly what you put into it.
- My favorite thing was how I wrote many papers and hopefully I can recycle these papers next year.
- Brutal honesty. No beating around the bush in Mr. Chaffee’s class. I did enjoy the volume of writing as well, even if you don’t think so.
What did you like the least about English this year?
- I did not like how there were no multiple choice questions, I actually had to think to answer questions. (That’s too bad, really, having to think.)
- The constant fear of failing essays.
- People who complained about your jokes because they couldn’t understand them. (I know, I hate that too.)
What have you learned in English this year?
- Always pay attention!
- A lot of things that really aren’t relevant to English. (But I hope they are relevant to life.)
- Girls get angry when you forget their names; 2 out of 3 men know when to shut up. (There were only three men in his class!)
- Mr. Chaffee grades harder than any other English teacher! (I try; after all, you're a senior!)
- Stuff
- What redundant means. (I wrote that word on her papers many times.)
- I have learned how it’s not good to procrastinate because it affects your essays.
- That potty training a three year old is a b_____. (That's my three-year-old, not his... I hope.)
- Good thought is better than a correct idea with no work or thought behind it. An answer that isn’t necessarily right is worth it for the work and growth behind it.
- I learned that there’s no sense in using a $20 word when you can get the same idea across using $1 words, and it’ll cost less. I also learned what I’m capable of when it comes to writing.
Did your teacher give you enough feedback on papers, etc.?
- Yes, I think the 60s I received were quite clear.
- Oh yes, quite enough feedback. My essays displayed much green ink.
Do you believe you have improved as a writer this year?
- Yes, because in past years they taught us to write a certain way, where this year my teacher pointed out my mistakes instead of saying my format was wrong. (This is the danger of teaching to the test, EVEN if the test includes an “essay.” Our students only learn to write boring, empty, formulaic essays.)
- Yeah, because you edited the crap out of my essays. (I wouldn’t have to if there weren’t so much crap in there to begin with!)
- I do believe my skills at writing and literary analysis improved greatly. Your opinion may be entirely different though, and since you’re the only one with a degree in this area, your opinion wins. (Indeed it does.)
- I think I have improved. I used to not be able to write a 3 page essay on one topic, but now I can do it while actually sounding somewhat intelligent.
- Yes, I learned how to write correctly rather than write for the Regents. (Regents = State exam.)
- I think so, but I believe if I wanted to I could’ve put in more effort.
- Yes, I don’t make such grandiose, empty statements, for the most part.
- I was really wordy before this class, and now I’m only moderately wordy.
Did College English affect how you read literature?
- I don’t think it helped because the SAT told me I can’t read.
- No. I’m pretty good at reading. I still read from left to right until the end of one line, then I go to the next line. At the end of the page, wait for it, I go to the next page!
Do you think College English was on a college level?
- Yes, the workload was intense. (You’re telling me. I had to grade all that stuff.)
- You realize you are asking this of high schoolers?
- Yes and no; yes because of the curriculum, and no because we’re high school seniors and no matter how hard you try you can never cure senioritis. (I could, but the cure isn’t “legal.”)
Do you have any suggestions about how to make the class better?
- Maybe take out the reading, assignments, quizzes, tests, and essays.
- More movies and more research papers. (More research papers? By the way, this was from a regular English 12 student who did not write nearly as many papers as the College English students.)
- Allow students to choose what to do for their final project. Let it be anything that could relate to what had been done during the year. Like maybe composition of several different types of poetry, or a study of the court manners from the era of Hamlet. That sort of thing. (This was from a College English student; it's a good idea...)
Is there anything you would like to say on any topic whatever?
- I would not want to have your job.
- You weren’t a horrible teacher. I did learn a few things that might be helpful in the future. Thank you. (At least I wasn’t horrible.)
- I like pie.
I also like pie. Hope you are all enjoying the summer. I plan more posts this summer with some of my odd ideas about education, such as they are.
J
6/11/11
So Long...
I had four sections of seniors this year, more than I have ever had. And on one of the end of the year class surveys (quotes from those in a future post) a student mentioned liking my blog. I have known for a few months now that some of them have found it, and in fact a few are apparently in an odd way amused to see their own sentences posted. You guys are strange. So anyway, to any of you seniors who will be graduating, best wishes, good luck, congratulations, yada yada yada... That said, here are some of your last English paper flubs. Enjoy! As always, these are real student sentences and my comments are in ( ).
- This poem has one main theme, adventure and a want for freedom. (Not a math major.)
- So the idea of Gwendolyn marrying Jack Lady Bracknell finds obscured.
- Love is a connection between two soles. (That's why married people go through so many shoes.)
- A poetic element allows readers to think about the poem which the message the reader thinks is being sent is created. (Deep?)
- He feels out the forms that are required by the government.
- The society is living where bureaucracy is taken into effect.
- This quote has a lot of meaning that is meant to be interpreted. (As opposed to those quotes that are not meant to be interpreted, I suppose.)
- Jack hives a simple life.
- I pity any woman who is maimed to a man called john.
- Contradictory comes into play... (He's my favorite character!)
- Love and Marriage has been especially emphasized on parts that in matters of love and marriage are unimportant.
- Jack and Algernon altar the truth. (If you have read The Importance of Being Earnest, this is actually quite astute.)
- They have met for only a day.
- Both Polonius and Laertes believe Ophelia's relationship with Hamlet is a pleasure one.
- The characters consider themselves are really not in any way. (?)
- None of them are really in love takes time.
- ... there is much more two her...
- ...heirs to the throne must marry someone else who is of royal decent.
- ...him name is Ernest. (And hims name is also Jack.)
- ...biologically his name really was Ernest. (No, I think biologically his name is homo sapien.)
- This is as if to say that marriage is like perjury. (I guess it depends on who you marry.)
I have some more essays to grade, and final exam essays as well, so stay tuned. And as promised above, fun and interesting comments from end of the year surveys coming up too.
J
- This poem has one main theme, adventure and a want for freedom. (Not a math major.)
- So the idea of Gwendolyn marrying Jack Lady Bracknell finds obscured.
- Love is a connection between two soles. (That's why married people go through so many shoes.)
- A poetic element allows readers to think about the poem which the message the reader thinks is being sent is created. (Deep?)
- He feels out the forms that are required by the government.
- The society is living where bureaucracy is taken into effect.
- This quote has a lot of meaning that is meant to be interpreted. (As opposed to those quotes that are not meant to be interpreted, I suppose.)
- Jack hives a simple life.
- I pity any woman who is maimed to a man called john.
- Contradictory comes into play... (He's my favorite character!)
- Love and Marriage has been especially emphasized on parts that in matters of love and marriage are unimportant.
- Jack and Algernon altar the truth. (If you have read The Importance of Being Earnest, this is actually quite astute.)
- They have met for only a day.
- Both Polonius and Laertes believe Ophelia's relationship with Hamlet is a pleasure one.
- The characters consider themselves are really not in any way. (?)
- None of them are really in love takes time.
- ... there is much more two her...
- ...heirs to the throne must marry someone else who is of royal decent.
- ...him name is Ernest. (And hims name is also Jack.)
- ...biologically his name really was Ernest. (No, I think biologically his name is homo sapien.)
- This is as if to say that marriage is like perjury. (I guess it depends on who you marry.)
I have some more essays to grade, and final exam essays as well, so stay tuned. And as promised above, fun and interesting comments from end of the year surveys coming up too.
J
5/17/11
Home Stretch
It's May. Almost June. Just a few more... Anyway, let's skip the formalities and get right to the sentences this time. As always, these are from student work, and my comments are in ( ).
- Subconsciously she has been creeping every night.
- The wallpaper woman is being help captive.
- At night she crawls around the room on all floors.
- (This was the title of a paper.) Character Characteristics of the Characters of "Stalking"
- In the violet death of her adversary... (I have always pictured death as more red than violet.)
- All the attention she has been longing for is now bottling up inside of her.
- Gretchen's beliefs help with the overall theme of the story. (Those themes need all the help they can get, I guess.)
- She dreamed of killing villains and riding her horse off into the sun. (Ouch?)
- (On a vocabulary quiz.) vagrant = strong in smell (Well, they often are, but...)
- In the passed...
- Her husband takes on the societal role of a perogative doctor. (My prerogative doctor won't let me get a second opinion.)
- The choir dressed in long black ropes.
- ...the author goes on to give off symboliziom. (Is that on the Periodic Table?)
- They were indeed placing a form of violence upon Dummy.
- There are many vivid deceptions of people.
- She believes that white people have more money and are, therefore in a higher social class. (This is more a fact than a matter of belief, no? If you have money, you are... never mind.)
- Her father just viewed her as his left hand man. (He must have been a lefty.)
- This allows the creation of a perspective the reader has about the main idea when he or she reads the story. (Did you get any of that?)
- She was beginning to feel a girly state. (No comment...)
That's it for this round.
J
5/4/11
On the Fallacy of Grades
I could say a lot on this topic, but I would like to offer a short and simple example of how the idea that we can actually grade learning and real thought is laughably ridiculous. I assigned my College English students to read two sonnets by Shakespeare, numbers 18 and 130. Sonnet 18 begins, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" and is all about how amazingly beautiful the woman is. Sonnet 130 begins, "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun," and describes how unattractive his mistress is, but ends, "And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare / As any she belied with false compare." That day I put on the board this "Quiz" question with no stipulation as to length or format:
Ladies: Which poem would you rather have written about you?
Gents: Which poem would you give to your lady?
Explain.
The following is a response written by one of the gents:
"I see the meaning in sonnet 130. It shows honesty and unclouded sight. However, I feel that my love is more extravagant like sonnet 18. I would be completely drowned in foolish adoration which washes aside all flaws so that only the best can be seen. The perfection depicted in the lines of sonnet 18 are what I would see in the woman I love. Honestly, my lady in particular would probably be more accepting of 130, but I wouldn't give her anything but 18 because it is representative of how I feel, not necessarily how she really is."
How does one give this an "objective grade?" It's a good answer. It reveals an understanding of the poetry. It reveals a connection to the poetry that goes beyond cursory reading. It reveals a willingness to grapple with ideas. It reveals honesty and self-knowledge. Can any of those things be quantified? Sure, I could grade him on things like the organization and development of the paragraph, or the number of specific references to the works; but who cares about those things if they were to come with no evidence of all the qualities previously mentioned? And if I were to take this response as the "100%" against which other answers might be measured, how could I scale others against it? What would constitute a response that was 85% as honest as this one, or only 70% as connected? How do I measure, on a scale of 100, whatever that means, how well any student has understood these poems? None of the things that matter can be graded, and most of the things we grade in school are the things the students forget quickest, truthfully because they are the least important to life.
I gave that response a 100. Because I have to give it something. I do not yet teach in a district that will let me get away with not giving grades, though the idea of not giving any grades is one for another time. However, we ought to realize that Oscar Wilde was right: "Education is an admirable thing. But it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught." Far less can it be graded.
J
Ladies: Which poem would you rather have written about you?
Gents: Which poem would you give to your lady?
Explain.
The following is a response written by one of the gents:
"I see the meaning in sonnet 130. It shows honesty and unclouded sight. However, I feel that my love is more extravagant like sonnet 18. I would be completely drowned in foolish adoration which washes aside all flaws so that only the best can be seen. The perfection depicted in the lines of sonnet 18 are what I would see in the woman I love. Honestly, my lady in particular would probably be more accepting of 130, but I wouldn't give her anything but 18 because it is representative of how I feel, not necessarily how she really is."
How does one give this an "objective grade?" It's a good answer. It reveals an understanding of the poetry. It reveals a connection to the poetry that goes beyond cursory reading. It reveals a willingness to grapple with ideas. It reveals honesty and self-knowledge. Can any of those things be quantified? Sure, I could grade him on things like the organization and development of the paragraph, or the number of specific references to the works; but who cares about those things if they were to come with no evidence of all the qualities previously mentioned? And if I were to take this response as the "100%" against which other answers might be measured, how could I scale others against it? What would constitute a response that was 85% as honest as this one, or only 70% as connected? How do I measure, on a scale of 100, whatever that means, how well any student has understood these poems? None of the things that matter can be graded, and most of the things we grade in school are the things the students forget quickest, truthfully because they are the least important to life.
I gave that response a 100. Because I have to give it something. I do not yet teach in a district that will let me get away with not giving grades, though the idea of not giving any grades is one for another time. However, we ought to realize that Oscar Wilde was right: "Education is an admirable thing. But it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught." Far less can it be graded.
J
5/3/11
Like a Boss
"A system based entirely on the division of labour is in one sense literally half-witted. That is, each performer of half of an operation does really use only half of his wits." -G.K. Chesterton
As a rule I do not like reality TV. However, I have found myself on many recent Sunday nights watching the show Undercover Boss. The premise of the show is that a corporate boss or CEO will leave the corporate offices and, in disguise, will work in various franchises of his or her own company in order to discover more about the company's workings. I have seen episodes featuring the CEO of a restaurant chain, a resort chain, a trucking company, the mayor of Cincinnati, and the chancellor of the University of California Riverside, to name a few. The show does suffer from the obvious and annoying pitfalls of all reality TV: it is clearly selectively edited, it tugs strenuously at the heart strings, it digs a little too hard at times for drama, in short it's more TV than reality.
Yet I find myself drawn to the show. I find myself surprised, when I know I shouldn't be, that the CEOs and big wigs seem to have very little idea about what goes on in the trenches of their businesses. The bosses are consistently surprised that the employees they meet (clearly chosen ahead of time by producers because of their hard luck stories) are so dedicated to their jobs despite their financial struggles. As a teacher I have never worked in the corporate world, but I can't imagine our superintendent walking into an elementary room and being surprised that the teacher had to deal with twenty-five third graders every day. How can these people not know what is going on in their own company? How can they not know that many employees struggle to make ends meet? Do they not know what people are paid? Again, I find it hard to believe.
Of course, at the end of the show the boss offers these chosen dedicated workers some sort of bonus, or a paid vacation, or training and promotion, or in one case a young worker was offered his own franchise and the franchise fee was waived. "See! The American Dream lives!" the producers are shouting at us. I find myself wondering if the hundreds of other employees will reap the benefits of the boss's new perspective. I can hope, but I have my doubts.
To bring in the quote I began with, it is always the boss who seems half-witted. He or she is not able to hack the jobs performed by the employees. That quote is from a book titled "The Outline of Sanity," (which I highly recommend) in which Chesterton lays down the principles of his economic philosophy, distributism. One of his solutions is that the company ought to be run and owned by all of the people who work in it, not just a few at the top who give orders to the underpaid underlings. It would be a company run on the principles of democracy, that system we supposedly believe in. There would be no half-witted boss who sits in an office all day and has no idea how his company actually functions. And maybe there would be no need to offer poorly paid and struggling employees what amounts to prizes for actually doing their jobs well. It's a thought.
J
As a rule I do not like reality TV. However, I have found myself on many recent Sunday nights watching the show Undercover Boss. The premise of the show is that a corporate boss or CEO will leave the corporate offices and, in disguise, will work in various franchises of his or her own company in order to discover more about the company's workings. I have seen episodes featuring the CEO of a restaurant chain, a resort chain, a trucking company, the mayor of Cincinnati, and the chancellor of the University of California Riverside, to name a few. The show does suffer from the obvious and annoying pitfalls of all reality TV: it is clearly selectively edited, it tugs strenuously at the heart strings, it digs a little too hard at times for drama, in short it's more TV than reality.
Yet I find myself drawn to the show. I find myself surprised, when I know I shouldn't be, that the CEOs and big wigs seem to have very little idea about what goes on in the trenches of their businesses. The bosses are consistently surprised that the employees they meet (clearly chosen ahead of time by producers because of their hard luck stories) are so dedicated to their jobs despite their financial struggles. As a teacher I have never worked in the corporate world, but I can't imagine our superintendent walking into an elementary room and being surprised that the teacher had to deal with twenty-five third graders every day. How can these people not know what is going on in their own company? How can they not know that many employees struggle to make ends meet? Do they not know what people are paid? Again, I find it hard to believe.
Of course, at the end of the show the boss offers these chosen dedicated workers some sort of bonus, or a paid vacation, or training and promotion, or in one case a young worker was offered his own franchise and the franchise fee was waived. "See! The American Dream lives!" the producers are shouting at us. I find myself wondering if the hundreds of other employees will reap the benefits of the boss's new perspective. I can hope, but I have my doubts.
To bring in the quote I began with, it is always the boss who seems half-witted. He or she is not able to hack the jobs performed by the employees. That quote is from a book titled "The Outline of Sanity," (which I highly recommend) in which Chesterton lays down the principles of his economic philosophy, distributism. One of his solutions is that the company ought to be run and owned by all of the people who work in it, not just a few at the top who give orders to the underpaid underlings. It would be a company run on the principles of democracy, that system we supposedly believe in. There would be no half-witted boss who sits in an office all day and has no idea how his company actually functions. And maybe there would be no need to offer poorly paid and struggling employees what amounts to prizes for actually doing their jobs well. It's a thought.
J
4/30/11
Back to Sentences
Writers write. Did you know that? So many of my students open their papers with sentences that say little more than, "Writers write." "The author uses techniques to bring characters to life." "The author uses symbolism to display the theme." "The author uses theme to help the reader understand the story." Banal; these sentences make me want to stab holes in the paper. It' all I can do to make it to the end of the introduction. Of course, then I get sentences like the following. As always, these are from student work and my comments are in ( ).
- ... which includes violence and other workers of their castle.
- Lady Macbeth begins to plan her plan.
- What really made it real...
- Even a blind mane could tell that.
- ... is supposedly supposed to possess...
- Macbeth's gender roll...
- There are many characters in Shakespeare's play Macbeth. (Thanks for the heads up.)
- Macbeth accepts to kill King Duncan in seek of power.
- Banquo would be father to a line of kinds. (Which kinds though?)
- Without characters literature would be boring and uneventful. (Really? Then it's a good thing authors put them in there.)
- She... starts to question and think for herself in a more feminine quality.
- Cultural characteristics and differences have been defined by people's behaviors and belief statuses that are in one's society.
- Bush's policy would improve our ability to find, track, and stop tourists. (So will that Arizona law.)
- Alcohol awareness classes make sure they won't be a treat to the community. (Those drunks are a treat though, aren't they?)
- Individuals still decide to make decisions.
- A round character is one who changes overtime.
- He is the man that goes around doing nonsense jobs like cleaning the toilet and refilling toilet paper. (Yes, what nonsense.)
That's it for now. Got more ideas for posts, and more papers to read. Stay tuned.
J
- ... which includes violence and other workers of their castle.
- Lady Macbeth begins to plan her plan.
- What really made it real...
- Even a blind mane could tell that.
- ... is supposedly supposed to possess...
- Macbeth's gender roll...
- There are many characters in Shakespeare's play Macbeth. (Thanks for the heads up.)
- Macbeth accepts to kill King Duncan in seek of power.
- Banquo would be father to a line of kinds. (Which kinds though?)
- Without characters literature would be boring and uneventful. (Really? Then it's a good thing authors put them in there.)
- She... starts to question and think for herself in a more feminine quality.
- Cultural characteristics and differences have been defined by people's behaviors and belief statuses that are in one's society.
- Bush's policy would improve our ability to find, track, and stop tourists. (So will that Arizona law.)
- Alcohol awareness classes make sure they won't be a treat to the community. (Those drunks are a treat though, aren't they?)
- Individuals still decide to make decisions.
- A round character is one who changes overtime.
- He is the man that goes around doing nonsense jobs like cleaning the toilet and refilling toilet paper. (Yes, what nonsense.)
That's it for now. Got more ideas for posts, and more papers to read. Stay tuned.
J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)