The Role of the Critic

Before I see a movie, I always check the reviews of it beforehand to see what the professional "critics" thought of it. If the reviews are positive, I tend to view the movie favorably when I watch it, thinking that if a critic was impressed by the movie, then so should I. Similarly, whenever the reviews are negative, I tend to look down upon that movie. Occasionally, I don't even see a film due to his low ratings.

But then I started thinking. Why do we often presume that the critic's view of the movie is the "correct" one? Why do we even have critics? If everyone has a different intensional mindset, then we shouldn't rely upon the judgment of others in deciding whether to see a movie or not. For example, I never saw the movie 300 because its reviews weren't very positive, so I went to see another movie instead. But of course many of my friends loved it.

It extends to many other fields as well. What about food and wine critics? How can someone else taste something the same way that I would?
I realize that we sometimes rely upon critics to provide at least a baseline judgment about something, but don't we take it a bit far sometimes? The wine critic, Robert Parker, is so powerful that if a wine receives below an 75 from him, it's often doomed.

What should the role of a critic be?

-Eric W.

Wall- E: human?

As we were watching Wall-E in chemistry, everyone happened to almost sympathize with what Wall-E was going through. For example, when Wall-E was sad, we felt pity. When a situation didn't work out for him, we all went, 'awwww' and 'that sucks'. The way we regard him, is nearly the same way we would regard another human being, even though Wall-E is a robot.

This led to me to recall something I learned in art history class (pretty much the only thing I ever did learn in that class). One day, we were going over pieces from ancient civilizations. We discussed this one stone, in particular, that was kept in one household not to be used as a tool, but rather because it resembled the human face. It had holes and scratches in it that resembled two eyes, a nose, and a mouth. It was kept because the people felt an attachment to it.

There was also this one study where a man stood in front of a group with a doll. Now, even though everyone knew that the doll was an inanimate object. It wasn't human. Yet, when the man cut off its head, everyone expressed either some sort of shock or horror. The study suggests that the group had grown attached to the doll because it shared the features of the human face.

Is this the same as in Wall-E? He doesn't even communicate like a proper human, and yet, we sympathize with his feelings. Is it really because he happens to have a face that resembles that of a human being?

Thoughts?

Technology in Politics

So I was flipping through the channels and came across the Colbert Report. But, unfortunately, it was ending so I was only able to catch a few minutes. Anyway, the guest for that night was a representative from the republican party. They were discussing how technology was involved in elections. Colbert asked the representative if someone would be more likely to vote for a candidate running for office if they used things like facebook, myspace, and twitter. The representative without hesitation said that it wouldn't help nor make an influence on the voters.

However, I can't help but have a different opinion. I think that a candidate's use of technology can have a very deep impression on voters. I remember that so many people looked down on McCain because he wasn't able to use even basic technology like email. I would think that a candidate might be able to even connect more to the younger voters by using recent technology.

Thoughts?

Mary Quien

Language Developments

When preparing for the AP exam we read a passage about the development of language over periods of time. I was wondering if this same rule also applies to names. Here are the top five names from various years over the last century:(http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/top5names.html)

1909:
Mary, Helen, Margaret, Ruth, Dorothy
John, William, James, George, Robert

1939:
Mary, Barbara, Patricia, Judith, Betty
James, William, John, Robert, Richard

1969:
Lisa, Michelle, Kimberly, Jennifer, Melissa
Michael, David, James, John, Robert

2008:
Emma, Isabella, Emily, Madison, Ava
Jacob, Michael, Ethan, Joshua, Daniel

If you look at this website the boys names are much more consistent than the girls, but I think that is from the use of names from the Bible for boys. So if language is always developing and changing, does this same rhetorical shift affect names? If not, what does?

(Kelley Volosin)

Dissections - Morality?

Last week, AP Biology students dissected a sheep's eye. This week, we began the dissection of the fetal pig. Mrs. Ericson has informed us that fetal pigs, or unborn pigs, are a by-product of the meat packing industry. In other words, they did not sacrifice their lives solely for our dissections. Instead, their unfortunate deaths will contribute to our studies of life.

I'm almost positive that every student has to participate in at least some part of the dissection. A few students last year and this year had tremendous difficulty beginning the process, yet followed through eventually. If a student finds the dissection morally incorrect or unsound, should he/she still be obliged to participate? Because we took the AP exam, the lab practical for the fetal pig dissection has taken the place of our final exam. In order to do well on the lab, the students would have had to participate during the dissection. Would the teacher be obliged to make an alternative form of the final exam? Or, all this aside, should the student be forced to dissect the fetal pig?

The reason I bring this up is because of the many lessons we've been learning in health, many of which correlate to the idea of "staying true to one's values/morals." Could the dissection be compromising someone's morals?

(Sam Maliha)

How to Read a Book

A few months ago, as I walked through the UPenn college bookstore (during Model Congress!), I noticed a book called "How to Read a Book." Of course, this caught my attention. Flipping through it, it seemed as though the authors had categorized the various methods of reading and ordered them in their effectiveness. The goal of the book was to help others read at a higher level.

For example, the first level was called "elementary reading," the type where we simply pick up a book, read of all the words, and put it back down without pondering too deeply about the content. This type of reading is often done for pleasure, but is considered more ineffective. The last, and most advanced, method of reading was called "synoptical", in which a person could read several different books in the same subject area, analyze them, and use them to build an overall view of the subject being read. This would be considered "active reading."

But is it right to judge reading methods in their effectiveness? Is there really any right or wrong way to read a book? Some people read books solely for enjoyment, without paying any attention to analysis or symbolism. Does that mean that their reading method is inferior, or simply that they have chosen a different way? The authors do concede that "elementary reading" can have its uses: if you're so caught up on analyzing every little detail in a Shakespeare play, you risk missing the overall point of it. But "active synoptical reading" still is considered the most effective way of reading by the authors.

Should reading be a spontaneous effort, or should it be approached with care? The problem with focusing on the method of reading itself is that it takes attention away from simply reading books in general, whatever your method. Or does it?
Thoughts?
-Eric W.

Colleges

So last night, I went to this presentation where a lot of colleges presented their campus, curriculum, etc. All their presentations were pretty similar and shared the same type of information. However, their tactics in catching the audiences attention did vary. I remember how the representative from Harvard tried to crack a couple of jokes and made sure to point out their 'Harry Potter dining hall.' There was also the representative from Stanford that had showed this one slide of all of its elective classes, purposely making room for all of them on such a small slide to show its expansiveness. As I was watching all of these colleges make these presentations, I was wondering how those representatives picked this of presentation based on the audience (and this applies to all those college letters as well). After all, it is a challenge. How do you get a bunch of teenagers and their parents to become interested in your college? Should you bother using history and statistics or should you focus on your different selection of courses? Should you focus on the campus or the study abroad programs?

Which aspects do you think these college representatives should include? After all, we are part of the audience that they are trying to appeal to. We have at least some idea about what we really want to hear about (or do we? >_>)

Mary Quien

Never Satisfied, Are We?

The blog has been inactive for far too long. AP tests are over; pressure has subsided slightly, but not completely.

In health class, lately, we've been in the process of discussing "touchy topics," if you will. The last unit we covered was one on contraceptives. The one before was based on sexually transmitted diseases. All are things that people deal with on a daily basis, but that remain hush-hush, especially in a society like ours. While concluding class last week, we read a scenario, and based on the actions of each character, had to decide who behaved most honorably in the given situation. In this specific text, a young teenage girl was at risk of being pregnant. Her mother did not know of the situation, yet voiced that she would never want her daughter to do anything that would harm her lifestyle or cause her any trouble. Therefore, I ranked the mother as being the most honorable of all the characters. The majority of the class, however, chose the young girl, Lily, as being the most honorable because she took initiative and made an effort to understand what would happen with her body.

The majority argued that Lily's mother had been too stiff and too unreasonable. The key, however, is to remember that Lily's mother had not known of Lily's true situation. Lily had denied the rumor, and her mother believed her, making us see that there was some sort of trust between the two. How could the mother possibly be at fault? She was neither presented with the situation, nor the chance to tackle it.

Why is it that when we find ourselves in trouble, we blame our parents for their "lack of support," yet when everything is fine and dandy, we scold them for fulfilling their maternal/paternal duties. Isn't it the same with any sort of intervention: divine, political, etc..?

I just thought this would be an interesting topic to rekindle the blog with.

(Sam Maliha)

Swine Flu = Hysteria?

As we all know from the recent spread of reports, the possibility of a swine flu pandemic is causing many people around the world to feel an extraordinary amount of anxiety. This couldn't make more sense, seeing as the World Health Organization reports that there are 659 confirmed cases of the virus in 16 different nations, including Canada, Spain, Germany, and South Korea. The US has already reported 161 cases, seven of which are in New Jersey. (See more stats at http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/02/swine.flu/index.html.) Who wouldn't feel at least a bit worried?

Yet a second CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/02/swine.flu.schools/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) indicates that a high school in Texas was so worried that swine flu might spread throughout the school that, despite the fact that none of its students had reported anything yet, it postponed its senior prom, much to the dismay of some students. Yes, Texas has already reported 28 cases of the virus, but as the student cited in the article asks, was this action truly necessary? No one is complaining that precautionary measures are being taken; it's just that there is a fine line between precaution and paranoia. How do we define where this line lies? Clearly each person is at his or her own discretion, but what happens when some people seem to be taking things a bit too far?

What prompted me to write about this issue was actually a comment which my mom made this morning. She noted that the whole world seems to be overly concerned about swine flu, and then she said, "At this rate, this is going to turn into a witch hunt!" I was immediately reminded of the Salem Witch Hunt of the Puritan period and thus began to wonder if my mom's comment, simply made in passing, actually has a deeper significance. Is the current situation on its way to becoming a hysterical "witch hunt" after those who cough as they say that they returned from a trip to Mexico, or are our extreme anxiety and paranoid precautions entirely justified?

(Janet Lee)