Now that it's officially winter break at our school, I think it would be suitable to talk about breaks and vacations in general. At our school, we have a half-week Thanksgiving Break, a 2-week winter break, a 1-week Spring Break, and an enormous 2-month summer. However, at some schools, the breaks are elongated and there is a very short (usually 3-week) summer vacation. The school administrators that establish these breaks believe that a shorter summer helps students retain the information they learned from the prior school year. They also believe that three weeks of summer is enough time to relax and vacation.
In my opinion, I believe that system is too intense and unreasonable. Three weeks? Seriously? Summer is a customary time of relaxation, and by cutting it down by more than a half, there will be a lot more unhappy kids unwilling to learn. Not only that, summer traditions like overnight camp and adventure trips will not be able to happen. I would not be the same person if I had not gone to overnight camp (actually, I have gone for the past 8 summers). These camps and other summer programs (which help to stimulate the economy) would perish if this break system were established at every school. There's the notion in these people that you forget what you learn over a long summer, but let me tell you from personal experience: that is almost completely untrue. First off, most students keep their binders and such from the year, which contains all of the stuff they learned throughout the year. Second, most topics are revisited in future classes, forcing you to retain all of the learned material. Students have a sort of muscle memory when it comes to learning; if they pay attention, the information is stored in a vault in their heads. Though with difficulty, they are able to access this information again. I'm perfectly satisfied with the breaks at my school, but a short three-week summer kills the essence of summer. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Invisible Children and School Chest
When the typical American is asked to name a charity, he or she would probably pick something like The American Cancer Society because it is so prominent. Invisible Children, on the other hand, is a seemingly invisible charity. Started by three young men in the early 2000s, Invisible Children strives to end a long-running conflict with one man, Joseph Kony, rebelling against the Ugandan government. Because few support him, he abducts children from their homes, brainwashes them, and uses them as soldiers instead. As child soldiers, they are asked to kill their family members because their new family is the army. If they do not follow orders, they are physically punished by crippling, amputation, blinding, machete, and several other ways. Kids in the area that are not yet abducted stay away from their homes and live on the streets. If you're already curious about the history of this conflict, all of the information can be found here: http://www.invisiblechildren.com/about.
After watching a documentary about Invisible Children and learning about this charity for the first time, I am rather shocked. I thought human beings by now would know better than to do something so completely unethical like this. What Joseph Kony is doing is an act of pure evil, and somehow, someway, he needs to be stopped. I'm not saying that we Americans have a duty to stop him; you shouldn't feel guilty about not participating in any charities. Charity is a completely optional action; it should not be a requirement. I just respect these young people out there that have the desire to help others. It also goes to show that even stereotypically insignificant people can make a big difference in the lives of others.
Personally, I believe that Invisible Children is a substantial charity with a great cause. However, there are other charities I would choose over this one. At our high school, in these few weeks between Thanksgiving break and winter break, we hold an annual gigantic fundraiser for a charity that the entire school votes for. We call this fundraiser School Chest; every year, we manage to raise around $100,000 dollars. We choose our charities carefully because we want to see our money have a large, visible impact. Our final two charities that we had to vote for were GSD (Glycogen Storage Disorder) and, of course, Invisible Children. GSD is fairly self explanatory; it's a genetic mutation that prohibits the body from storing glycogen, a source of energy, properly. So far, they have found a cure within dogs, which means that they're very close to finding a cure, but they don't have enough funding. The Invisible Children representative for our high school, a man named Jedidiah Jenkins, said that if we chose Invisible Children as our charity, they would be able to afford an entire radio tower to broadcast to the child soldiers. The thing is though, wouldn't the LRA find out about this tower and try to eliminate it? And, if they found these children's radios broadcasting a way to escape, wouldn't they break the radio and/or punish the children? This radio tower that we're funding seems too sketchy for me; I originally voted for GSD. The reason is because, like Invisible Children, it is not a well-known disease and kills hundreds of people. However, if we gave them the money we normally make for School Chest, we could fund research for a cure. Our school could have made history, and we could have saved hundreds of lives in our country. Don't get me wrong, Invisible Children is an excellent cause, but I believe that GSD would have better fit School Chest.
After watching a documentary about Invisible Children and learning about this charity for the first time, I am rather shocked. I thought human beings by now would know better than to do something so completely unethical like this. What Joseph Kony is doing is an act of pure evil, and somehow, someway, he needs to be stopped. I'm not saying that we Americans have a duty to stop him; you shouldn't feel guilty about not participating in any charities. Charity is a completely optional action; it should not be a requirement. I just respect these young people out there that have the desire to help others. It also goes to show that even stereotypically insignificant people can make a big difference in the lives of others.
Personally, I believe that Invisible Children is a substantial charity with a great cause. However, there are other charities I would choose over this one. At our high school, in these few weeks between Thanksgiving break and winter break, we hold an annual gigantic fundraiser for a charity that the entire school votes for. We call this fundraiser School Chest; every year, we manage to raise around $100,000 dollars. We choose our charities carefully because we want to see our money have a large, visible impact. Our final two charities that we had to vote for were GSD (Glycogen Storage Disorder) and, of course, Invisible Children. GSD is fairly self explanatory; it's a genetic mutation that prohibits the body from storing glycogen, a source of energy, properly. So far, they have found a cure within dogs, which means that they're very close to finding a cure, but they don't have enough funding. The Invisible Children representative for our high school, a man named Jedidiah Jenkins, said that if we chose Invisible Children as our charity, they would be able to afford an entire radio tower to broadcast to the child soldiers. The thing is though, wouldn't the LRA find out about this tower and try to eliminate it? And, if they found these children's radios broadcasting a way to escape, wouldn't they break the radio and/or punish the children? This radio tower that we're funding seems too sketchy for me; I originally voted for GSD. The reason is because, like Invisible Children, it is not a well-known disease and kills hundreds of people. However, if we gave them the money we normally make for School Chest, we could fund research for a cure. Our school could have made history, and we could have saved hundreds of lives in our country. Don't get me wrong, Invisible Children is an excellent cause, but I believe that GSD would have better fit School Chest.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Perfect Pitch
Everyone has (or had) a niche in high school, whether it be as an athlete, a scholar, an actor, et cetera. Me? I belong in the fine arts department, specifically choral groups; that's my niche. There's a more specific one for me though. Every day in chorus, at least one kid asks me, "Hey, Brett, were we flat?" or "Hey Brett, what note/chord/key was that?" or "Hey Brett, sing me a G." I'm the kid in my chorus with perfect pitch.
Perfect pitch is the ability to know what every note sounds like. If someone were to play a note on the piano, you would know what that note is. Along with notes, I can discern key signatures and most chords (including jazz chords). Perfect pitch is a strange concept to me because I don't understand why most people don't have it. It's like knowing green from red and red from purple, and everyone can do that (except color blind people). So why can't people differentiate pitches from each other? Well, the only explanation for this is that there are a lot more tone deaf people out there; tonality is not something we pay attention to every day. Color, on the other hand, we see every second of every day of our lives. This explains why it is said that only 1 in 1000 people in America have perfect pitch, and 1 in 100 people in Asian countries have perfect pitch. Asian languages are much more pitch-oriented, so Asians are paying much more attention to tonality in their everyday lives.
Some people say that perfect pitch is something you're born with (a lot of people think that way with my perfect pitch), while others say that it can be developed over time. I believe in a bit of both. Musical ability runs on my dad's side of the family, so I probably obtained some of my hearing abilities from them. However, I don't think I was necessarily born with perfect pitch. Back in elementary school, I played most of my instruments using sheet music, but I seemed to remember the general pitches I had to play. During our recorder unit, I remember playing the note the bell was in (A). I remembered that note and understood the sound of whole steps and half steps between pitches, so I guess I had relative pitch then. By middle school, I knew what every note sounded like. So when I say I believe in a bit of both nature and nurture, I believe more in the latter. I was born with high musical capabilities, but only by utilizing these abilities did I truly develop perfect pitch. Therefore, personally, I think that anyone can develop perfect pitch with time.
Perfect pitch is the ability to know what every note sounds like. If someone were to play a note on the piano, you would know what that note is. Along with notes, I can discern key signatures and most chords (including jazz chords). Perfect pitch is a strange concept to me because I don't understand why most people don't have it. It's like knowing green from red and red from purple, and everyone can do that (except color blind people). So why can't people differentiate pitches from each other? Well, the only explanation for this is that there are a lot more tone deaf people out there; tonality is not something we pay attention to every day. Color, on the other hand, we see every second of every day of our lives. This explains why it is said that only 1 in 1000 people in America have perfect pitch, and 1 in 100 people in Asian countries have perfect pitch. Asian languages are much more pitch-oriented, so Asians are paying much more attention to tonality in their everyday lives.
Some people say that perfect pitch is something you're born with (a lot of people think that way with my perfect pitch), while others say that it can be developed over time. I believe in a bit of both. Musical ability runs on my dad's side of the family, so I probably obtained some of my hearing abilities from them. However, I don't think I was necessarily born with perfect pitch. Back in elementary school, I played most of my instruments using sheet music, but I seemed to remember the general pitches I had to play. During our recorder unit, I remember playing the note the bell was in (A). I remembered that note and understood the sound of whole steps and half steps between pitches, so I guess I had relative pitch then. By middle school, I knew what every note sounded like. So when I say I believe in a bit of both nature and nurture, I believe more in the latter. I was born with high musical capabilities, but only by utilizing these abilities did I truly develop perfect pitch. Therefore, personally, I think that anyone can develop perfect pitch with time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)