The Evolution of Class

As the school year is finally wrapping up, my American Studies class is putting together all the covered curriculum to decide whether or not progress is being made in the United States.  This progress can be regarding multiple different themes, such as race, class, or gender.  One theme that I believe has evolved over the past centuries is the theme of class indicators.

In the earlier centuries of America, class was usually indicated by descent, which meant that you stayed in the social class that you were born in to.  Within the earlier colonies of America, it was especially hard to break out of the lower class, for education was extremely selective, and indentured service was often not worth the many years of work because of the quality and quantity of land given to the servant.  Also, material possessions were often not an indicator, except for the amount of land that someone owned.

In "The Kentucky Cycle", a play written by Robert Schenkkan, I found a firm example of how people back in the 1860's started to realize how other's class should be indentified.  Richard, a wealthy land owner whom seized property from the Rowen family, begins to realize that land isn't enough to make people happy.  "It isn't about property!  It's about somebody livin' miles and miles away tellin' you and me how we got to live".  This "somebody" that Richard is referring to is the king of England.  How I interpreted this quote was that the importance of land is starting to become less valuable in the minds of the people colonizing America.  Slowly, the importance of land started to decrease, and more focus was gained towards education and money.

Before we started reading "The Kentucky Cycle", our class looked at how social class is determined now.  The four areas we looked at were occupation, education, income, and wealth.  It is clear that values have turned around a lot since the era of "The Kentucky Cycle", which begged a couple of questions.

First, is it easier now to change your social class than it was back in the earlier centuries of the U.S.?
Second, what four areas (ex. occupation, education, income, and wealth) would be used to determine one's social class during the era of "The Kentucky Cycle?

A Sport Worth Playing?

After over a week conducting research on my junior theme topic, (Why doesn't the NFL do more to prevent players from concussions) I have really started to truly understand the seriousness of concussions.  Back in my sophomore year of high school I sustained a concussion during a basketball practice.  All of the "stupid" protocols really started to aggravate me, mostly because I felt completely fine and wanted to start playing again.  Following research however, "stupid" was indeed the worst word I could have possibly described the standard concussion recovery process as.  

Sports broadcaster and writer George Stroumboulopoulos conducted a research with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that the average life span of an NFL player is 55 years of age, nearly 22 years less than the average U.S. population as a whole.  Along with this reduction of life span is an increased percentage of having Alzheimer's (37 percent higher rate than average) after retirement from the league.  Most Alzheimer cases are diagnosed in humans over the age of 65, however many NFL players have experienced the disease at an age as young as 35.  

Sports columnists all over the country have opinions that the NFL is an economic devil, with owners using players as tools to their success.  Gregg Doyle of "cbssports" even quoted the NFL and its owners as "cold-hearted bastards", who to them, "players aren't people. They're commodities to be bought and sold, acquired and released. They're pieces in a brutal game of chess that has seen 273 players placed on injured reserve this season."  In my opinion, the people that would disagree the most with Doyle are NFL players themselves.  

If career ending, and possibly life ending injuries have been a proven outcome for many players of playing in the NFL, why do players still take up careers as football players?  Also, does the NFL have a bad influence on younger athletes and their decision making when it comes to their health?  The concussion issue in the NFL has begged many questions, those above being the most interesting to myself.  

Is the "Good" Always Right?

As I wrap up the last quarter of my junior year, the college admissions process is now starting to become a huge topic among both students and teachers all around the country for kids my age.  Some students already know where they want to go to school, and some students haven't a clue of what interests them.  Personally, I have researched and visited many colleges myself, and have composed a list of about ten schools that seem would be good fits.  

One issue that I have encountered already at the beginning of this process is the idea of a "good college".  To me, this statement comes off as extremely arrogant, not saying that all colleges are equal, but that there is this idea that there are good schools, average schools, and bad schools.  

Currently, college rankings are generally put together based on three factors:  The resources the college has, the admissions selectivity of students, and the average grades and test scores of the students that apply to these schools.  Nicholas Confessore of "The Atlantic" wrote that college rankings, such as U.S. News and Forbes, should not rank colleges under the title "The Best Colleges", but they should be titled as "America's Most Advantaged Colleges".  So as I start up my college admissions process, this idea of a "good school" has lead to many questions for me.  

First, how do you define a "Good" college?  Do you think schools with such strong reputations such as Harvard would drop in their ranking if they lost teaching resources?  And last, do you think teenagers have fallen into the trap of going to a school based on its reputation instead of going to a school in which they will have a great experience because it's a better fit?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/11/what-makes-a-college-good/302814/

GPA - Grades Preponderating Acheivements?

As soon to be second semester juniors are preparing themselves for the next couple months to come, one thing is overwhelming kids both at New Trier and all over the country.  With over half of their high school careers over, college admissions and preparation are now starting to hit full stride.  But what is it that makes the admissions process so stressful for students, specifically at New Trier? 

I was able to get the opportunity to create a pole among thirty of my peers at school about what they are most worried about with the admissions process.  Not to my surprise, sixty percent of students stated that their GPA was what they were most concerned about.  Now, even though this is not shocking to many people, myself included, it comes off as extremely bothersome to me. 

At a school of 4,000 plus students, competition is at a maximum with every aspect of life, whether it's a sport, one's academics, or even friendships and social life.  To a point this is understandable, for example if 100 students are applying to one college and only 5 can get in to that school, then one has no choice but to pursue their goals and dreams.  At the same time however, I am a strong believer that New Trier students more often than not over look many of their successes by comparing themselves to their peers. 

Take who we will call "student A" for example.  Student A has a 4.5 GPA and has dedicated himself to school.  He is a hardworking kid who has always been able to achieve what he wants.  Now take "student B", that so called "average" student with a GPA in the mid threes.  Student B hasn't been able to quite reach that 4.5 that A has because he has to work after school for four hours every other day.  B's school day also includes no free periods because of the extra two electives that he is taking.  When "B" compares himself to "A", this student overlooks all of the successful fundraisers that he has put together in pep club, or the hard earned money that he has made for his college fund with his extra work hours, because people tell him that student A is bound to be more successful in the future because of his or her grades.  Despite this being just one scenario, this is just one of the many examples of how students at New Trier negatively compare themselves with the "good students" or "future successes". 

Going off of the above however, what I am most interested in hearing about is where all of these over looking tendencies come from.  Is it the pressure put on by parents?  Is it websites such as Naviance, where students get the impression that you are required to have a certain GPA to get in to a good school?  Or is it simply just that typical North Shore attitude that the best way is the only way?   In no way am I disregarding the importance of having a good GPA in high school, but only pondering the reasons to why this number has made kids over look the bright future that they have ahead of them.