Grad School

So, grad school is weird. Not really. Kind of. Let's back up and start with something I know.



I moved on July 31st. The most time-consuming part of moving in was getting my furniture in a
configuration that I was happy with. Now that classes have started, I realize that I am unaccustomed
to not having my desk next to my bed and I have considered rearranging things to make that possible,
but I'm going to test this out for a few more weeks before I decide for sure.

My first room is L-shaped. The bottom of the L is the living/desk section with my couch, two tables,
desk, two desk chairs, and set of filing drawers. The top of the L is the storage/exercise section with
a giant bookshelf, and an extra wardrobe. Here lives my bike and yoga mat, as well as piano books
and extra school supplies. In the nook of the L is my bathroom. I am in love with my shower head.
It's the little things.

My second room is through a doorway halfway up the top of the L. The top half of this room is my
kitchen with full refrigerator, stove/oven, sink, and my own microwave and toaster oven. There's
also another table which is home to my crock pot and various dry food items. Next to my refrigerator
in the far corner of the room is a door which connects to my building's office. The bottom half of this
room is my bedroom with a wardrobe, chair, bed, and two bookshelves.



Training for my assistantship as the Resident Director for Davis Apartments started on August 1st.
There isn't much to say about that, other than the amount of time spent in training was far greater than
the amount of work I felt had been completed. Then all of the Resident Advisors arrived and it was
more of the same, other than social activity being more organized and mandated.

Move-in was surprisingly smooth, most likely because all of my staff (one ARD and five RAs) are all
returners and know what they're doing. I like them a lot.

Student Affairs and the Department of Housing and Residence Life are interesting. So far, I like it.
I can't say for sure, but I think I am more fit for the job of RD than I would have been for the job of
RA, so it's probably a good thing that I was never an RA during college, as that may have tainted my
opinion of Res Life and made me not apply for this job.

And then suddenly, after feeling like classes were ages in the future and feeling like that feeling was
a very recent feeling, classes started.



Classes started last Monday, August 27. I have a seminar and two classes on Monday, a class on Tuesday,
and field experience on Wednesdays and Thursdays, in addition to eight weekly staff meetings and an
online course. I don't feel too busy yet, but that may be because I had no classes today and because most
of those staff meetings won't start until tomorrow. Anyways, so far, so good, I guess. Motivation has been
extremely difficult to find, but I think that's because I've been in my own head too much lately.

For example, I was thinking about how it would have been nice to get my BSW and then only have one
additional year (...well, a summer and a year) for my MSW instead of two. But that means I would not
have been able to go to college where I did, which means I would not have met the people I did, which
means I would not have made the friends that I did, and so on.

Also, grad school is weird. Yeah, it is. Don't get me wrong, I like my classes well enough, but I think I miss
general education courses. And that feels weird. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that I miss having
a variety of Sociology, Psychology, and Social Work courses. That makes more sense.

I like feeding myself, though. A lot. I love cooking eggs and making yogurt and fresh fruit parfaits and
toast! I like my toaster oven. And pasta. And I used my crock pot last week and it was awesome.





So, aside from feeling braindead and having trouble remembering everything, having trouble finding and
maintaining motivation, and being sad in general from having to cope with such a large transition (and also
focusing on the wrong things), things are alright.

Except for the fact that doing a load of laundry will cost $3.

Changes

Not even earth can hold us
Not even life controls us
Not even the ground can keep us down
The memories in my head
Are just as real the time we spent
You always be close to me
My friend
This is not the end

(The Bravery - This is Not the End)




I'm biking. My ride today made me realize that I have an excruciatingly long way to go before I can
honestly consider myself a biker, but I'm biking. I biked a bit last summer and started again on May 23.
I started on my hand-me-down Huffy mountain bike that was far too small for me and moved on to my
mom's probably-Huffy mountain bike that was a somewhat better fit. Since July 18, I now have my
custom/hand-built road bike. Surly frame and white-taped drop handlebars. That's about all I know.
Clearly I am not a biker. Regardless, she is beautiful and I am very much in love. Tomorrow, I will get
a saddle pouch to carry my phone so that I can track my rides/climbs/speeds on Strava. Since May 23,
I've lost twenty pounds and, although still disappointingly low, my cardio endurance has dramatically
increased.

I'm back where I belong, at least temporarily. On Tuesday, I complete my move to my semi-permanent
home in Tennessee. Pretty much my entire life is in my car right now, save my computer, my bike, my
phone, and basic necessities to last me for two and a half days.

What I really need is to know my new mailing address. I can't order textbooks without it.

Yesterday was my last day (foreva'!) at the part-time job I'd had since September 2008. The part-time
job. Already is it no longer mine. One of my customers bought me a lottery ticket as a going-away present.
My customers. Still they are mine.

I'm no longer a pot-stirrer. I think. Maybe. I'm not quite sure yet. I began to suspect that I had out-grown
this characteristic when, in spite of having a personal opinion in regards to Chick-fil-a vs. Boston, I had no
desire to make it semi-public information (via Facebook). Well, I had some desire, but I had no desire to
endure/respond to any responses it would inspire. So it went unsaid by me. Maybe I only want to be a
silent pot-stirrer. I guess that's what I've always like most about pot-stirring, anyways. Watching.

I'm working on crying less. It's an experiment.

I'll be in charge of lots of students starting shortly. It sounds like the residence hall that I will be overseeing
houses most of the summer students, so my responsibilities may start earlier than they will in other halls.
Someone once told me that housing buildings at colleges are residence halls, not dorms, because dorms
are housing buildings at jails and prisons. They're still dorms to me. Sorry not sorry.

I may or may not be becoming more and more of an anarchist. I attended an Exploring Liberty seminar
about a month ago and quickly realized that I was probably much more radical than most of the other
students. I'm not going to go into details at this point in time, but I am not (yet?) a full-time anarchist. Rather,
the idea of political implosion and temporary anarchy is becoming more and more appealing.

I'm very much in love.

Bonnaroo 2012

Bonnaroo was amazing.



I left on Monday, June 4 and spent two nights in Virginia before leaving with a group of four friends to drive
to Manchester, Tennessee. After much traffic and many jokes about The South, we arrived in Bonnaroo
traffic and entered the festival grounds without (much) hassle. We set up camp alongside forty other people
in our "groop," toured some of the grounds with our veteran leader, and waited for the music to begin.

On Thursday, nine of us set out to venture into Centeroo, where we got lunch and soon got separated. Some
of us took a nap. I'm not sure what others did. After some independent exploring, I went to see EMA. After
EMA, I went to see Mariachi El Bronx. The members of this band had a previous band, The Bronx, before
they decided to start a mariachi band "as a joke." Their mariachi band is now more popular than the original.
Next, I went to see Dale Earnhardt Jr. Jr., stuck around for a bit of White Denim, and then went to see
Marina Orchestra. Marina Orchestra was probably my favorite set of Thursday. They're within the "world"
genre, but I don't know what that means, so I would classify them as folk+dance+fun and say they're a bit
similar to Sixpence None the Richer, as far as style/sound. I then saw a bit of Phantogram and stuck around
for MiMosa - an EDM/dubstep group with a good light show, but not much else.

On Friday, the same group of nine made a more distinct effort to have a meeting plan throughout the day.
I went off on my own early in the day because I wanted to see Katie Herzig (look up her song, Hologram),
who did a performance/interview on the tiny little Solar Stage within Planet Roo. After that, I went to catch
the end of Tune-Yards and stuck around for Two Door Cinema Club, which was one of the bands I was
most excited to see. I then headed to the main stage to meet back up with the group and see The Avett
Brothers, Rodrigo y Gabriela and C.U.B.A, and Radiohead. In doing so, I missed seeing Key and Peele,
as well as Ludacris, but being close to the front for these three acts was well worth it. The Avett Brothers
were good, but a little rough, probably because they were most likely hung over from the CMAs in
Nashville that had taken place a day or two earlier. Rodrigo y Gabriela were AMAZING. And Radiohead
was so much more mind-blowing than I ever could have expected. Afterwards, most of us headed to see
Major Lazer and Flying Lotus, but I ended up going back early to go to sleep.

On Saturday, I headed out to see Das Racist, who were not very good live. After, instead of going to see
Blind Pilot, I stuck around to see Battles, which was a terrific decision. Battles is tied with Radiohead as my
favorite set of Bonnaroo 2012. Afterwards, I explored a bit until going to see half of Childish Gambino's
set, before going to see all of Mogwai's set. During this time, a older hippie gentleman noticed my pins on
my camera case strap and gave me one from his box of buttons to add to my collection. On it, it says:
"The United States of Bonnaroo." Mogwai announced that they would be doing signings after their
performance, so I stuck around for that. Two boys and I were the first people to find guitarist, Stuart
Braithwaite, and I provided my sharpie for Stuart's signings. After he signed my bandanna, I followed him
to see if he would be joined by his band members (and because he still had my sharpie). After waiting for
a bit, I decided I wanted to head to Red Hot Chili Peppers, so I got his attention and told him that he could
keep my sharpie if I could get a picture with him. He agreed to the picture, but told me that he did not want
my pen to do signings. I was hesitant, but left. Two seconds later, he caught up with me and admitted that
he did need my sharpie because he was getting mobbed and no one had a pen. As I handed it to him, I said
I told him so and he gave me a hug in thanks. On the way to RHCC, I saw a bit of Dispatch. I got close
enough to RHCC to take a few pictures, but was exhausted, so I walked through the crowd to find a place
to sit. I sat next to a hippie woman, who also noticed my pins and asked if we could trade one. She had
many Mumford & Sons pins and gave me her favorite. I told her about Frankie Muniz and gave her my
Kingsfoil pin. We also talked about the older hippie gentleman with the box of pins, who she had met last
year. After getting trampled on too much during RHCC, I found a safe place to sit and passed out until I was
woken by the sounds of 80,000 people stampeding out of the main stage area after RHCC's set. Later, I
met up with what was left of the group. We tried to see Superjam, but could not get close enough for it to
be worth it, especially once Skrillex started. I watched a bit of Skrillex's set, but was too far away and
amongst not enough people to truly appreciate it, so I walked back to our campsite and went to sleep to the
soothing sounds of dubstep after I spent ten minutes killing the colony of ants that decided to enter my tent.

On Sunday, I woke up in puddles. Annoyed, I spread out a plastic tablecloth under one of our canopies,
dragged out my mostly-dry sleeping bag, and tried to sleep more. On Sunday, I took it easy because I knew
I wanted to be awake enough to appreciate Phish in their fullest. The first set I saw was Stooges Brass Band,
followed by half of War on Drug's set and half of The Antlers' set. On my way to see one of Kenny Rogers'
songs, I cut through Planet Roo and passed the Solar Stage, where I ran into one of my good friends and
watched a bit of Blind Pilot with him. After being unsuccessful at meeting up with him all weekend, it was a
delightful surprise. I then stopped by to see Kenny Rogers and walked by Ben Folds Five on my way to get
a good spot for Bon Iver and Phish. Bon Iver was incredible and Justin Vernon repeatedly mentioned how
in awe he was of having the opportunity to open for Phish. Phish was also great, although their set was slightly
heavy for my tastes, especially in comparison to the lighter set of fun songs they performed in Hershey.
My favorite part of Phish was how clear it was that Trey Anastasio was having a great deal of fun and that
he was amazed how passionately the Bonnaroo crowd cheered for them. After Phish, I exited Centeroo
through the main entrance so that I could walk under the Bonnaroo arch for the first time. Back at the
campsite, four of us reflected upon all of this great music and spent some quality time together. I then went
to sleep in one of our cars, as my slightly damp sleeping bag had since turned into my very saturated sleeping
bag.

On Monday, we packed up the rest of our campsite, did a bit of sanctioned looting, and headed back to
Virginia. In Chattanooga, we stopped at Bojangle's for lunch and made even more jokes about The South.
At Bojangle's, I ran into another friend from back home in Pennsylvania, which was likewise astounding.
Although it seemed like we were making good time at first, it ended up taking us FOREVER to get back to
Virginia, where I was greeted by being yelled at to immediately take a shower.

A Growing Enthusiasm for Music and Culture

On the way home from Bonnaroo in the midst of a discussion of 90s pop music, I tried to figure out when
I got into music. I missed a lot of pop music during my childhood (N*SYNC, Backstreet Boys, Brittney
Spears, etc) because I wasn't a part of that scene. I was busy listening to unknown Christian artists like
RAZE or more popular ones like Steven Curtis Chapman. So where was the turning point? How did I
get from RAZE to Battles, Mogwai, Phish, Two Door Cinema Club, Elbow, Radohead, Styx, Supertramp,
The Bravery, SWEET, Bon Iver, S. Carey, and countless others?

Somewhere along the line, I transitioned from the younger generation of Christian artists to more
mainstream artists like The Newsboys (thanks to my brother). Also around this time, my family and
I found a Wang Chung album (on cassette?!) at a library book sale during one of our vacations.

My first concert was sneaking into the end of Festival con Dios to see Newsboys. A year or two
after that (2005 or 2006), I started going to the Purple Door festival. In addition to seeing some
mainstream Christian artists, these festivals were also opportunities to discover lesser-known artists,
such as Joy Electric, Finechina, Brave Saint Saturn, Anathallo, and Seabird. There were also incredible
groups, like mewithoutyou. This exposure to a wider range of music can again be attributed to my
brother, as well as a few specific friends.

This transition period was also influenced by a growing interest in oldies and classic rock. Honestly,
I think my interest in oldies was revealed by Recess: The Movie, which features a number of classic
songs from the hippie era. This interest was synchronized with my resurrection as a pianist, which
was fed by Reader's Digest piano books, many of which consisted of songs from the 20s-50s.
Shortly after this, I was suddenly a hardcore fan of Styx. While I'm not sure how or why this fandom
occurred so abruptly and severely, this later led me to love The Who, Supertramp, Yes, and Genesis.
The musical expansion into oldies and classic rock was supported by one of my best friends and my dad.

Then things get blurry and I really don't know how I got from where I was after attending concerts of
Styx* and The Who; to where I have been recently with concerts of MacROCK 2011, Matt and Kim,
Iron and Wine*; to where I am now after Bonnaroo 2012.
*The Pretenders opened for Styx
*The Low Anthem opened for Iron and Wine
There were definitely a few friends during my time at Bridgewater College who fostered my growing
knowledge of music, but this was mostly through mutual sharing, which means that I was already well
into music before getting more into music with these friends.

So what happened?

While I'm not sure and while the blurry spot between oldies/classic rock and indie/alt will probably
always be blurry, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I tend to be adventurous, curious, longing
to discover, and continuously interested in culture.

While music is definitely about the music, to me, it is also about the culture. Sometimes, the interest in
culture surpasses the interest in music (or performance). For example, on June 2, I drove through
tornadoes and tsunamis to Baltimore to attend a spoken word concert. My mom asked if it was a
multicultural event and I replied yes, because I was there. Now, in retrospect, this sounds far more
ethnocentric than I intended. What I meant was that, even though I went to this event for the poetry,
I ended up enjoying it even more because of the cultural experience. There is culture in the audience.
There is culture in the words of the performer. There is culture in the music of the performance. There
is culture in the thoughts behind the words and the music. There is culture behind the performer.

There is culture behind that culture.

And this makes sense and starts to sharpen the blur.

At some point in time, I was interested in the culture of Rock Horror Picture Show, so I watched it and
"discovered" the music of Meatloaf. There was a car commercial that utilized the song, Ballroom Blitz,
which my brother and I looked up and I have been a fan of SWEET (as well as the culture surrounding
this band) ever since. One time, when my brother and I we exploring Vermont, we stumbled upon a
radio station and our minds were blown by the deepness of Flobot's Handlebars. This led me to explore
Flobots more and, thanks to another friend, led me to an entire field of politically-outspoken artists and
rappers. My brother was really into Beck's Guero album at one point in time and, once he outgrew that
obsession, I took it over for him and continued it by exploring Beck's older albums (Mellowgold,
Odelay, and Sea Change, thanks to another friend) and later his newer work (The Information). This
exploration allowed me to see how Beck's newer work incorporated culture from his older and more
recent albums.

And so, this interest in culture, along with sharing music with friends (albeit sometimes with undertones
of "I know more bands than you"), has led me to where I am today.

Group Work: Friend or Foe (published in Veritas 5/4)

_____Say the words, “group project,” and most students will groan. However, some students – the slackers – will rejoice because a group project is often an opportunity for them to kick back, relax, and earn the (hopefully) good grade of the group while putting in little to no work of their own. What is the motivation behind assigning group projects? Well, according to kidshealth.org, group projects prepare you for real life when your job will require you to work with others. However, many professors believe that this is an outdated philosophy. I do not mean that group skills are not important in real life or that appropriate social skills are unnecessary to collaborate effectively. I simply think that group work is overrated when it comes to teaching these skills. _____There are a number of different types of group work, including group projects, partnered presentations, and small group discussions. Regardless of the type of work, the members, structure, purpose, and setting are key factors that determine efficacy and success. First, there is the issue of group members. We’ve all been there: being in a group with a slacker is wholly frustrating. Well, unless you’re the slacker, but I would bet those students are not reading this. There are few ways to remedy this problem. In educational settings, the best method is most likely utilizing peer evaluations, where each member submits a score for each peer, based on his or her contribution. In job settings, this is likely not possible because the boss is only concerned with the product and does not have to assign individual grades based on peer evaluations. In both settings, where group work is asserted as being conducive to collaboration, such experiences can result in a great deal of fractionalization, whether because of frustration with the slacker or burnout from doing a disproportionate amount of work. _____Second, there is the issue of structure. How are leaders determined? How is work divided and delegated? On the very low-structured end of the continuum, every aspect of how the assignment is completed is determined by the group itself. Internally, a leader is determined in one of three ways: a natural leader is comfortable with this role and volunteers, the most interactive and vocal member is seen as a leader and is pressured into this role by the other members, or the person who cares the most about performance takes responsibility for it. In educational settings, natural leaders are most likely the most successful, although this does not eliminate all problems. In job settings, leadership tends to be competitive – more like the third option – in that the leader will most likely receive the most credit (or the most critique). As far as division of labor, this is primarily determined by the efficacy of the leader, although even the best delegation skills can be squandered by a surplus of slackers. _____In contrast, on the very high-structured end of the continuum (which I personally have never encountered), every aspect of how the assignment is completed is determined by the person who holds a formal title above the group members. In an educational setting, this would be the professor and, in a job setting, this would be the boss who is assigning the project. In regards to group projects specifically, this would be less like a group project and more like individual work completed on the same topic or issue. While it would still require communication between the members in order to coordinate their efforts, it could reduce the possibility of unnoticed slackers and frustrating fractionalization. _____Third, there is the issue of purpose. What is the goal of the group work? Common goals in include discussion and partializing certain amounts of work. In both educational and job settings, it seems that discussion would be more easily attained and effective. Being in a group is appropriate for reviewing learned material, discussing new theories, and brainstorming new ideas because it increases the number of perspectives and adds new ways of thinking. Otherwise, group work is typically assigned so that one person does not have to do everything. This seems somewhat silly for small amounts of work, but can potentially be helpful for large amounts of work, which means that it is important to consider if it would be feasible and more effective for one person to complete the assignment. This also leads back into the question of how work is divided and delegated because projects with a large amount of work create an opportunity for slackers, which can lead to burnout among the other, overworked members. _____Fourth, there is the issue of setting. Setting is important because it is related to motivation. For example, if group members are not invested in the project, it is unlikely they will be very motivated because these tasks tend to be seen as just more hoops to jump through. This is probably most common in general education courses and jobs that lack sufficient incentives. In contrast, if members are similarly motivated and share the goals of doing well and learning much, they are more likely to collaborate effectively. This is probably most common in core major and elective courses and jobs with a strong employee community. Another facet of setting is how well the members know each other, which determines decision-making if people are allowed to pick their fellow members. Although students tend to organize by convenience for class discussions and short-term work, most students prefer to be able to choose their fellow members for long-term projects. However, such choice is helpful only if the students know each other well enough. _____So, what can we learn from this? I, personally, have learned that group dynamics is a topic that does and will continue to interest me, albeit a frustrating one (see: http://carpathiabenatar.blogspot.com/2011/04/group-projects.html). Beyond this, perhaps we will decide that group work is a bit overemphasized in the world, whether within educational or professional settings. I find this especially odd in light of the strong value of individualism that is prominent in the U.S. While group work could be a method of determining skill through competition, I do not think it is effective. Further, long-term and intensive group projects are most likely not the best way to teach skills of cooperation and collaboration, although they may be helpful for completing a large workload. _____Lastly, the most important lesson is that goals, methods, and outcomes must be as congruent as possible. If the goal is collaboration skills, similar assignments about the same topic within a small group can provide opportunities for sharing information. If the goal is delegation and leadership skills, assign one person to be the leader who delegates and holds others accountable. If the goal is simply to get a great deal of work done, make sure that each member has a generally equal workload. As far as dealing with slackers, they will be found throughout the world and in a wide variety of settings. Coping with them is beyond the scope of this article, so perhaps I will tackle this topic in a future blog post. For now, non-slackers and over-achievers alike… stick together, cooperate, collaborate, and add something of worth to the world.

Veritas Article: 3/30

The Downfalls of Standardized Testing, published in Veritas on 3/30

I recently took my senior comprehensive exam for my Sociology major. Although this test no longer has any weight in determining graduation or Latin honors eligibility, it is still used by the department to estimate effectiveness of the faculty in teaching core and common courses. This is done by comparing scores across many colleges and universities, but only those that use the same measure from ETS can be included. Even this comparison is difficult because each college and university has a unique set of faculty, courses, and curriculum. This is concerning because such standardized tests have the propensity to lead to a standardized curriculum and it is my opinion that a standardized curriculum does not encourage true learning.

There are many different tests that serve as standards of learning. Typically, one of two types is used: achievement or aptitude. All students are familiar with both. Achievement tests measure “the skill or knowledge attained by an individual in one or more fields of study.” Achievement tests include the SOL in Virginia, the PSSA in Pennsylvania, the MSA and HSA in Maryland, and the NJASK in New Jersey, as well as my senior comprehensive exam. Aptitude tests “predict an individual’s ability to learn certain skills.” These include the SAT, the GRE, the LSAT, and the PRAXIS. There are also intelligence tests, used “to determine the relative mental capacity of a person to learn,” but we won’t worry about those right now. (Definitions taken from merriam-webster.com)

So what are the downfalls of standardized testing, such as achievement tests? First, as mentioned above, standardized achievement tests encourage the development of a standardized curriculum. Such a curriculum will most likely focus on the memorization of facts, because this is more conducive to multiple-choice tests. This is not genuine learning. Sure, rote memorization might help you win some games of at-home jeopardy or learn simple job skills, but critical thinking and other abstract skills provide far more opportunities. Related to this is the second downfall: achievement tests cannot measure such abstract skills. This means that reward emphasis is placed on rote memorization and students that excel in abstract areas over fact knowledge may be overlooked or underestimated.

Third, achievement tests determine funding eligibility and job security, which means that standardization is valued more than creativity and unique thought. Fourth, achievement tests encourage teachers to teach to the test so that their students will perform better in order to meet funding eligibility and job security requirements. Again, this leads to rote memorization and generally disengaged students. Even though curriculum currently includes subject matter that is not included on the achievement test, teachers tend to divide material into what will and will not be included in the test. Additionally, teachers tend to devote a great deal of time to review, which leads to the fifth downfall: measuring crammed knowledge does not measure truly retained knowledge and such tests may favor students who are more inclined to such study methods. And sixth, such pressure to perform well in order to secure funding and teaching jobs may encourage students to cheat.

Seventh, achievement tests create a disadvantage for a variety of students, such as those who are not good test takers or strong readers or those who are more active and do not want to sit still all day. And eighth, standardization through achievement tests tends to encourage tracking and labeling. Personally, I see tracking as a way of creating pigeonholes and boxes that students must fit into. I was homeschooled, so I do not have personal experience with this phenomenon, but as a student who was average in math and excelled in other areas, I can imagine how tracking would not have served me well. Had my curriculum been based on my math knowledge, I would have been bored in other subjects. Had my curriculum been based on my writing and reading abilities, I would have been frustrated with higher-level math. Achievement tests are likely to lead to students being reduced to a single number, whether a test score or a performance level, and this serves as a way of stereotyping students and ignoring individual differences in learning style, talent, and interest. These stereotypes can also serve as labels. For example, if a student is placed in the “turtle” group and if this student comes to believe that he or she is a slow student, he or she will probably never strive to excel and may never reach his or her full potential.

Many of the above downfalls similarly apply to aptitude tests, the effectiveness of which is quite controversial. Essentially, aptitude tests such as the SAT are designed to predict a student’s ability to learn and succeed. In a sense, they can be thought of as a measure of a student’s effectiveness at being a student. But how accurate are such measures? Probably not very. For example, I have a friend whose SAT score could have secured him a full scholarship at any school. He chose not to attend college and is now living on his own and making music because this is what he wanted to do with his talents and interests. However, many view him as a poor student because of this decision, even though he is still extremely intelligent. Further, the high pressure on students to do well on the SAT in order to secure admission to and scholarships for college can lead to a great deal of stress and concern. For example, I took my SAT three times in order to increase my eligibility for scholarships and, to this day, I despise scantrons.

So what should we do? Reducing the emphasis on standardization does not need to eliminate standards altogether. But let us take a lesson from alternative methods of education. My mother certainly never taught to the test, but I scored extremely well on achievement tests, which are required in Pennsylvania for all students in third, fifth, and eighth grades. There may have been some detailed facts that I could not recite, but I knew enough and could think well enough to excel in these measures. Similarly, such an emphasis on standardization can actually decrease the standards and expectations we hold of our students. We are indoctrinating them with the belief that it is more important to memorize and recite than to think and reason and we will soon experience an extreme shortage of creative thinkers because of this. Now, before it is too late, we must encourage these creative thinkers to remain outside of the box, empower others to do the same, and alter society’s view of education being all about the test score.

Veritas Article: 3/23

The Positivity of Negative Rights, published in Veritas on 3/23

A few weeks ago, I attended the Fifth Annual International Students for Liberty Conference, which was held at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C., from February 17-19. It was an incredible experience, primarily because there were over one thousand students, alumni, staff, speakers, and presenters, all of whom shared a common bond: an interest in liberty and a desire to remedy the broken political system of the U.S. Even though the details of our political philosophies varied, we were not divided by dogma because we were united through common action.

Aside from this spirit of community, another highlight of ISFLC was the various breakout sessions that students could attend. These sessions were hosted by a variety of organizations, such as the Atlas Network, the CATO Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education, GOProud, the Institute for Humane Studies, Students for Liberty, and Young Americans for Liberty. I attended a number of sessions, including What is Austrian Economics?, Behind Canada: America’s Decline in Economic Freedom, Government Schooling for a Free Society?, Liberaltarians: Examining Liberty Through the Gender/Race/Class Lens, Law Enforcement Socialism, and The Militarization of Main Street.

One of my favorite sessions was titled, Can We Kill the Children from Salem? This session was sponsored by the Institute of Humane Studies and featured James Stacey Taylor, a professor of philosophy at The College of New Jersey. Taylor spoke about negative and positive rights: what they accomplish, how they interact, and how they are different. He started with a historical overview of moral and legal rights. First, Immanuel Kant said that we should believe in natural rights because we need certain goods to have a flourishing life, such as property, autonomy, expression, interaction, and so on. He also believed that all people are morally equivalent, therefore allowing acquired goods to be legitimately protected from force by force and requiring all people to recognize the equal rights of others. Second, Thomas Hobbes thought that natural rights may not exist, but that this was irrelevant because all people are mutually vulnerable. This view leads to rights based upon reciprocity, in that all people must respect others in a way that they want to be respected. Later, John Stuart Mills combined these philosophies in his harm principle, saying that acting as if all people have natural rights is the best way to ensure natural rights and promote flourishing lives.

Taylor then went on to compare negative and positive rights. Simply stated, negative rights are freedoms from, whereas positive rights are freedoms to. For example, under negative rights, you have the right to be free from interference by others (interference in healthcare, property, income, etc.) and others have a duty to refrain from interfering with those things. On the other hand, under positive rights, you have the right to have free access to such things and others have a duty to provide such things to you. After giving this overview, Taylor used two audience members to illustrate how positive rights encroach upon negative rights.

Phil has money and his negative right says that others have the duty to refrain from taking his money. Justin has no money and his positive rights say that others have the duty to provide money to him. This is accomplished by taking Phil's money, thus violating Phil’s negative rights in order to provide for Justin’s positive rights. This means that negative and positive rights cannot exist at the same time and that we must choose to support one or the other. Personally, along with Taylor and most other conference attendees, I am a supporter of negative rights because they seem more basic and fundamental and therefore more natural and legitimate.

However, the U.S. is a land of regulation and welfare that is based primarily on positive rights and results in extremely limited negative rights. The positive right to regulated food that has been deemed as safe violates my negative right from interference in my desire to purchase raw milk or sell homemade lemonade. The positive right to relatively equal access to money violates my negative right from interference in my earned income. The positive right to protection from violent crime violates my negative right from interference in my self-protection through gun ownership.

Even so, I will not say that positive rights are all bad, because they probably are not. Additionally, certain rights can be either negative or positive: the right from interference in speaking freely and the right to free speech. The difference is that the basis of negative rights is freedom from interference, whereas the basis of positive rights is freedom to providence. Providence implies privilege and privileges are granted, not inherent. Thus, when the provided positive rights of one person violate the basic, fundamental negative rights of another person, we will know that the positive rights have gone too far.