I missed our class discussion on the optional read on April 14th - I was up at Army for a tennis match. I read through all of your blog posts – looks like a lot of good material for strong discussion. Here some reactions I had while I was reading:
Annamaria’s Paper: Nice book choice! As I wrote in my blog post, I’m a big fan of Friedman’s books and globalization theories. I was having a hard time applying the lexus and olive tree symbols to my life, but your anecdote shed light to their meanings. I agree with you – I think it is crucial to have both types of connections. Having read Shirky’s Cognitive Surplus, I wonder what his response to this would be. Shirky argued a collaboration of surplus information avails itself through communications technology. It seems the one flaw or hole in Shirky’s argument is the lexus and olive tree concept – to successfully globalize, you must have both. Shirky does not elaborate on this concept, instead argues connection over media platforms yields collective learning. I wonder if the two would butt heads or agree.
Steph’s paper: I didn’t read The Gutenberg Revolution (though I bought a copy for my Kindle when it was still required reading). The blending of concepts from all the books we have read thus far really shed light to what I think is the main concept of the book: “We have all of the tools. We just have to figure out a way to utilize them properly and make them revolutionary.” Pretty optimistic model to apply given graduation’s date closing in. What kind of tools do you think are most useful to put together in today’s society to be revolutionary?
Andy’s paper: I really enjoyed your post. The first thing I did, of course, was answer the question and I actually got it right! I found this ironic because I hate standardized tests and have thus avoided opening my LSAT prep books sitting in my desk drawer. My high school chemisty teacher would call your test question example a “Sesame Street” question. The question tries to trick the readers’ attention away from the obvious – the first sentence about avoiding a doctor if you have a sore throat disagrees with the remainder of the paragraph. To apply the “Sesame Street” theory, you find the answer that doesn’t fit amongst the bunch – if four of five answers are similar, the fifth outlier is correct. I agree with you that standardized tests do not test intelligence – anyone can do the “Sesame Street” method with a little practice, hence its name. You suggest the people who play by the rules perform the best, but are not necessarily the most intelligent. . Do you think this is a good way to test students or do you think it adds to the unoriginal type of person discussed in Lanier’s book?
Gotta get back to my final #J325 paper now - post to come soon! I really enjoyed our class this semester, getting to know you guys ... good luck next year to our seniors!
No comments:
Post a Comment