Friday, February 28, 2003
Conventionalism:
On this glorious paid day off, a dozen or so of we teachers from The School were sent to the 2003 NAIS (National Assoc. of Independent Schools) Conference at the labirynthine NYC Hilton to sharpen our skills and network.
It was a day at times moving, wholly exhausting, and brimmnig with more information/experiential shit than can possibly be blogged in one go, so I'll try and highlight the highlights.
1. Woke up earlier than usual (530am) to catch the 6am train to Penn, all to make the opening general session at 8am.
2. One of the day's highlights: the opening, featured speaker's (Cornel West, more in a sec) massive audience (all told, some 5,000 teachers and administrators attended) was warmed up by the Northwood School's steel-drum troupe, The Panhandlers. Apart from being located in snug Lake Placid, Northwood school has the illustrious honor of being the alma mater of one Dan Wake Man, of Colgate class of '05 (and former cast-mate; now a member of Experimental Theatre). They were good.
3. The Main Audience Chamber that housed the general assemblies (the rest of the workshops were held in smaller (by comparison) adjunct rooms all over the hotel's "convention center") is state-of-the-art by any award show standards; in fact, in surreal fashion, all the speakers were aided to the stage with cheesy snippets of what I will "triumphant violin/trumpet fanfares" (as in the "Theme from ET" or the "Star Trek Main Theme") with the exception of the NAIS president, who was segued to the podium by that "OLE, OLE! Ole, ole!" song). But the strangest moment of the day came when he introduced prominent intellectual Cornel West, and R. Kelly's "I Believe I Can Fly" blared suddenly from the speakers.
4. I can't possibly summarize the experience of a Cornel West speech. It was sort of connected to the practice pedagogy, but was mostly a rehashing of his "we're all learning to die" and "democracy is being eroded by a failed multiculturalism" essays, punctuated by a vague statement of political conviction, wherein he uttered concern over "the creeping authoritarianism of the U.S. patriotic act." Bleh. Cornel, you're eloquent and scholarly (to a fault), but you should stop short of semi-criticisms of breaking policy/events.
The most striking truth he made was the comparison of post 9/11 America to the mindset of African-Americans. Blacks have traditionally felt unprotected, scared, subject to random violence at any time; with the flaring of anti-Americanism in the form of devastating terrorism and whatnot, ALL American's have become "niggerized" (his term). I found this to be the only truly enlightening part of his rambly expressions (however poetic and dramatically spoken). Althought it cannot come close to the pain/burden of prejudice African Americans have suffered collectively, being the target of unjust, illogical, blind, hypocritical loathing DOES make me feel uneasy, awkward, and angry.
Else, his wisdom was Socrates': know thyself, and instill self-examination (the kind that can be frightening) as a practice in your students.
5. Highlight #2: the last of 4 workshops I sat in on was presented by a BRILLIANT writer/speaker (Dr. ? Deak). Her expertise is biochemistry, and has just written a book called Girls will be Girls. She was such a fantastic, down-to-earth, narcisistic in a humble way, speaker that I feel I would have bought whatever she was preaching.
What she did say was so fucking illuminating, and laid bare in semi-layman's terms so as not to be denied. Her basic points are that recent and breaking research in the huma brain demonstrates PROOF of gender differences in the BRAIN (her phrase "boys and girls are as different from the neck up as they are from the neck down"). The implications for school are that girls are a very different creature, and certain facts should be considered when attempting to curb their negative behaviors and guide them to success and confidence. Apparently, about 80% of females have a "female" brain set-up (non-technical term) in which several parts of this complex organ are used in balance to solve problems/think. In 80% percent of males, on the other lobe, one area of the brain alone is typically relied on. Girls generally comprehend and focus on details that lead up to a conclusion; boys predict an outcome, and then trace the details to verification. There are dozens of mind-blowing illuminations that follow.
When gestating, the human fetus recieves both estrogen an testosterone (whether male or female); research shows that, depending on the relative balance of the two, male or female babies can come out with brain-types of the opposite sex: this accounts for the 20 percenters who have "opposite sex" brain-types. Dr. Deak was quick to point out that such people are NOT HOMOSEXUAL, but that evidence is mounting to support the claim that the closer testosterone and estrogen levels are to equality during gestation, the closer the individual comes to homosexual drives, and eventually hermaphroditic features.
A female's amygdala (the part of the brain controlling emotions: fear, joy, anger) is different across the genders. For one, fear and anxiety shoot up easily in girls; for boys, it's only anger that can explode suddenly. Also, girls are evolutionarily bred to desire true connections with other humans (aided by a substance called oxytocin), rendering them oodles more capable of true empathy (feeling the suffering, pain, love of others) than most males (who can only understand such pains). THerefore, adolescent girls are more likely to form jealousies, defend friends, be "mean," be upset by a ruined relationship that leaves them alone. IT gets more complex, and it's late, but let me tell you, it was revealing, both in regards to some of my students behaviors and especially in regard to my own history with girls. I was one of only 4 men in the room, and I felt let in on such a secret.
6. Final highlight: Carlo Tee-hop and I buying each other pints of Brooklyn Lager in the Hilton lounge during the first half of the closing speaker (thought we made it back in time to catch most of it); good talk about poetry process and this season's softball potential.
On this glorious paid day off, a dozen or so of we teachers from The School were sent to the 2003 NAIS (National Assoc. of Independent Schools) Conference at the labirynthine NYC Hilton to sharpen our skills and network.
It was a day at times moving, wholly exhausting, and brimmnig with more information/experiential shit than can possibly be blogged in one go, so I'll try and highlight the highlights.
1. Woke up earlier than usual (530am) to catch the 6am train to Penn, all to make the opening general session at 8am.
2. One of the day's highlights: the opening, featured speaker's (Cornel West, more in a sec) massive audience (all told, some 5,000 teachers and administrators attended) was warmed up by the Northwood School's steel-drum troupe, The Panhandlers. Apart from being located in snug Lake Placid, Northwood school has the illustrious honor of being the alma mater of one Dan Wake Man, of Colgate class of '05 (and former cast-mate; now a member of Experimental Theatre). They were good.
3. The Main Audience Chamber that housed the general assemblies (the rest of the workshops were held in smaller (by comparison) adjunct rooms all over the hotel's "convention center") is state-of-the-art by any award show standards; in fact, in surreal fashion, all the speakers were aided to the stage with cheesy snippets of what I will "triumphant violin/trumpet fanfares" (as in the "Theme from ET" or the "Star Trek Main Theme") with the exception of the NAIS president, who was segued to the podium by that "OLE, OLE! Ole, ole!" song). But the strangest moment of the day came when he introduced prominent intellectual Cornel West, and R. Kelly's "I Believe I Can Fly" blared suddenly from the speakers.
4. I can't possibly summarize the experience of a Cornel West speech. It was sort of connected to the practice pedagogy, but was mostly a rehashing of his "we're all learning to die" and "democracy is being eroded by a failed multiculturalism" essays, punctuated by a vague statement of political conviction, wherein he uttered concern over "the creeping authoritarianism of the U.S. patriotic act." Bleh. Cornel, you're eloquent and scholarly (to a fault), but you should stop short of semi-criticisms of breaking policy/events.
The most striking truth he made was the comparison of post 9/11 America to the mindset of African-Americans. Blacks have traditionally felt unprotected, scared, subject to random violence at any time; with the flaring of anti-Americanism in the form of devastating terrorism and whatnot, ALL American's have become "niggerized" (his term). I found this to be the only truly enlightening part of his rambly expressions (however poetic and dramatically spoken). Althought it cannot come close to the pain/burden of prejudice African Americans have suffered collectively, being the target of unjust, illogical, blind, hypocritical loathing DOES make me feel uneasy, awkward, and angry.
Else, his wisdom was Socrates': know thyself, and instill self-examination (the kind that can be frightening) as a practice in your students.
5. Highlight #2: the last of 4 workshops I sat in on was presented by a BRILLIANT writer/speaker (Dr. ? Deak). Her expertise is biochemistry, and has just written a book called Girls will be Girls. She was such a fantastic, down-to-earth, narcisistic in a humble way, speaker that I feel I would have bought whatever she was preaching.
What she did say was so fucking illuminating, and laid bare in semi-layman's terms so as not to be denied. Her basic points are that recent and breaking research in the huma brain demonstrates PROOF of gender differences in the BRAIN (her phrase "boys and girls are as different from the neck up as they are from the neck down"). The implications for school are that girls are a very different creature, and certain facts should be considered when attempting to curb their negative behaviors and guide them to success and confidence. Apparently, about 80% of females have a "female" brain set-up (non-technical term) in which several parts of this complex organ are used in balance to solve problems/think. In 80% percent of males, on the other lobe, one area of the brain alone is typically relied on. Girls generally comprehend and focus on details that lead up to a conclusion; boys predict an outcome, and then trace the details to verification. There are dozens of mind-blowing illuminations that follow.
When gestating, the human fetus recieves both estrogen an testosterone (whether male or female); research shows that, depending on the relative balance of the two, male or female babies can come out with brain-types of the opposite sex: this accounts for the 20 percenters who have "opposite sex" brain-types. Dr. Deak was quick to point out that such people are NOT HOMOSEXUAL, but that evidence is mounting to support the claim that the closer testosterone and estrogen levels are to equality during gestation, the closer the individual comes to homosexual drives, and eventually hermaphroditic features.
A female's amygdala (the part of the brain controlling emotions: fear, joy, anger) is different across the genders. For one, fear and anxiety shoot up easily in girls; for boys, it's only anger that can explode suddenly. Also, girls are evolutionarily bred to desire true connections with other humans (aided by a substance called oxytocin), rendering them oodles more capable of true empathy (feeling the suffering, pain, love of others) than most males (who can only understand such pains). THerefore, adolescent girls are more likely to form jealousies, defend friends, be "mean," be upset by a ruined relationship that leaves them alone. IT gets more complex, and it's late, but let me tell you, it was revealing, both in regards to some of my students behaviors and especially in regard to my own history with girls. I was one of only 4 men in the room, and I felt let in on such a secret.
6. Final highlight: Carlo Tee-hop and I buying each other pints of Brooklyn Lager in the Hilton lounge during the first half of the closing speaker (thought we made it back in time to catch most of it); good talk about poetry process and this season's softball potential.
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Rulze Readin's:
1. No running
2. No dunking, splashing, or pushing
3. Do not play on the ropes, ladders, or stairs
4. No urinating, expactorating, or blowing your nose in the pool
5. No swimming under the lifeguard chairs
6. The guard office is for lifeguards only
7. Diving is only permitted in the 10' area
8. No dangerous dives, including spins, flips, backflips; anything may be outlawed by the guards' discretion
9. Children under 7 must be accompanied by an adult.
10. Only Coast Guard -approved flotation devices are allowed.
11. Please put all trash in the trash receptacles.
12. No playing in the locker rooms or showers.
13. No tag games outside of the pool.
14. No bikes/skateboards on the pool deck.
15. No eating, drinking, or chewing gum in the pool; please keep these items in the picnic area.
16. Only people who have passed the "swim test" can use the 6' and 10' areas.
17. No weapons.
18. No abusive or profane language.
19. No alcohol, tobacco, or drugs allowed anywhere on pool grounds.
20. We do not accept responisibility for lost or stolen items.
From my yut memory
1. No running
2. No dunking, splashing, or pushing
3. Do not play on the ropes, ladders, or stairs
4. No urinating, expactorating, or blowing your nose in the pool
5. No swimming under the lifeguard chairs
6. The guard office is for lifeguards only
7. Diving is only permitted in the 10' area
8. No dangerous dives, including spins, flips, backflips; anything may be outlawed by the guards' discretion
9. Children under 7 must be accompanied by an adult.
10. Only Coast Guard -approved flotation devices are allowed.
11. Please put all trash in the trash receptacles.
12. No playing in the locker rooms or showers.
13. No tag games outside of the pool.
14. No bikes/skateboards on the pool deck.
15. No eating, drinking, or chewing gum in the pool; please keep these items in the picnic area.
16. Only people who have passed the "swim test" can use the 6' and 10' areas.
17. No weapons.
18. No abusive or profane language.
19. No alcohol, tobacco, or drugs allowed anywhere on pool grounds.
20. We do not accept responisibility for lost or stolen items.
From my yut memory
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
mal ennuie:
Not even the unintentional suggestion of mulled oil can top today's nugget of INSIPITIDY, to which I was directed from Mssr. Christophe Flynn.
This is another case of having people poorly argue a position you are in like sentiment with (as in most anti-war activism).
In this skimpy article, even skimpier views on the "negative" influence of American cinema are presumed by one Bertrand Tavernier. He claims that American films, increasingly (I'd say saturated with) driven by special effects in lieu of ideas (agreed) are dumbifying a generation of French children.
Now, I am not one to deny the sorry state of commercial Amercian film, but I do so because such films offend my senses of art and integrity. This is a stoop only a fool with an agenda could make, to say that bad films are going to kill artistic sensitivity and reception in school-aged minds. Let's not forget the national origin of perhaps the most shallow, special effects-laden, piece of faux-art in the last several years: Jean Jeunet's nauseating Amelie. Like it or not, this film is a pure crowd pleaser, and in no way artistic, and yet the film was basically declared a "national treasure" (actually, literally). I ran across a Parisian on a film site who did not care for it, but expressed genuine fear of decrying the "masterpiece" for fear of the guillotine.
If the world is going to blame flimsy American blockbusters for the prevalence of apathy among their young, they might consider:
1. Their own fucked-up television programming.
2. Apathy is part of adolescence as is alienation, angst, pimples, regret, and a number of other noteables for any given kid. (see Truffaut's Le 4000 Coups or Slacker or Welcome to the Dollhouse or John Hughes or "Nick Adams" or JD Sallinger or...)
3. Guy Ritchie
4. Pact de la Loup
5. Nobody is forcing people to see blockbusters; they go of their own volition. If kids are insensitive to art, perhaps les ecoles should be revamped to instill appreciation, making les enfants less apathetic. Then perhaps they can SHARE your disdain for mindless entertainment.
6. Most adolescent minds are still developing/unequipped to fully appreciate all venues of art. Give those who can and want to the opportunity to choose to expand their mind and relish in ideas; it will create an iron confidence.
7. Economics may seem unfair, but movies are expensive to make. I'd rather see quality cinema, too, but money makes the movies everyone sees.
The quote that takes the cake (that has been let for them to eat) is:
Ultimately, Tavernier insists, the films are the first step of an American takeover of France.
"The Americans understood that if they are forcing the people to see the film, the people who see the film will buy the product - they will buy hamburgers, they will buy Coca-Cola, they will buy the clothes - and maybe they will buy their policy," he said.
"They always understood that the first way to occupy a country was to impose their films."
I'm not aware of a federal committee for the Dastardly Trojan-Horsing of American Culture as Means for Takeover. Hollywood is not aligned with the American government other than to abide by rating laws. It is just fucking dumb to use "they" in a sense that illogically includes all Americans, implicating us in a plot to purposefully conspire to produce shallow entertainment and export it for our own ends. We have our own cheese and vineyards; we get along fine.
If people don't like McDonalds, then don't go. If you don't want to see Daredevil, DON'T GO! If people are willing to part with francs for Ben Affleck in skin-tight foam-muscles and cheesy dialogue, that is their fucking problem. Don't macro-blame Americans for it.
There will always be shallow entertainments because people want to be entertained, and many people do not like to take their entertainment with much cerebral activity. That is a fact. I've accepted it, and it's made me a less bitter, less elitist person.
Not even the unintentional suggestion of mulled oil can top today's nugget of INSIPITIDY, to which I was directed from Mssr. Christophe Flynn.
This is another case of having people poorly argue a position you are in like sentiment with (as in most anti-war activism).
In this skimpy article, even skimpier views on the "negative" influence of American cinema are presumed by one Bertrand Tavernier. He claims that American films, increasingly (I'd say saturated with) driven by special effects in lieu of ideas (agreed) are dumbifying a generation of French children.
Now, I am not one to deny the sorry state of commercial Amercian film, but I do so because such films offend my senses of art and integrity. This is a stoop only a fool with an agenda could make, to say that bad films are going to kill artistic sensitivity and reception in school-aged minds. Let's not forget the national origin of perhaps the most shallow, special effects-laden, piece of faux-art in the last several years: Jean Jeunet's nauseating Amelie. Like it or not, this film is a pure crowd pleaser, and in no way artistic, and yet the film was basically declared a "national treasure" (actually, literally). I ran across a Parisian on a film site who did not care for it, but expressed genuine fear of decrying the "masterpiece" for fear of the guillotine.
If the world is going to blame flimsy American blockbusters for the prevalence of apathy among their young, they might consider:
1. Their own fucked-up television programming.
2. Apathy is part of adolescence as is alienation, angst, pimples, regret, and a number of other noteables for any given kid. (see Truffaut's Le 4000 Coups or Slacker or Welcome to the Dollhouse or John Hughes or "Nick Adams" or JD Sallinger or...)
3. Guy Ritchie
4. Pact de la Loup
5. Nobody is forcing people to see blockbusters; they go of their own volition. If kids are insensitive to art, perhaps les ecoles should be revamped to instill appreciation, making les enfants less apathetic. Then perhaps they can SHARE your disdain for mindless entertainment.
6. Most adolescent minds are still developing/unequipped to fully appreciate all venues of art. Give those who can and want to the opportunity to choose to expand their mind and relish in ideas; it will create an iron confidence.
7. Economics may seem unfair, but movies are expensive to make. I'd rather see quality cinema, too, but money makes the movies everyone sees.
The quote that takes the cake (that has been let for them to eat) is:
Ultimately, Tavernier insists, the films are the first step of an American takeover of France.
"The Americans understood that if they are forcing the people to see the film, the people who see the film will buy the product - they will buy hamburgers, they will buy Coca-Cola, they will buy the clothes - and maybe they will buy their policy," he said.
"They always understood that the first way to occupy a country was to impose their films."
I'm not aware of a federal committee for the Dastardly Trojan-Horsing of American Culture as Means for Takeover. Hollywood is not aligned with the American government other than to abide by rating laws. It is just fucking dumb to use "they" in a sense that illogically includes all Americans, implicating us in a plot to purposefully conspire to produce shallow entertainment and export it for our own ends. We have our own cheese and vineyards; we get along fine.
If people don't like McDonalds, then don't go. If you don't want to see Daredevil, DON'T GO! If people are willing to part with francs for Ben Affleck in skin-tight foam-muscles and cheesy dialogue, that is their fucking problem. Don't macro-blame Americans for it.
There will always be shallow entertainments because people want to be entertained, and many people do not like to take their entertainment with much cerebral activity. That is a fact. I've accepted it, and it's made me a less bitter, less elitist person.
Verb Abuse:
Whoever is in charge of writing the truncated headlines for the Yahoo mainpage should be careful with their verbs. One of theirs reads:
Islamic World Mulls Oil as Anti-War Weapon
Now I'm only given to taking things too literally when there is promise of humor, so don't give me any shit; but can't you just see teams of quaint, rustic Islamic scientists heating up vats of oil, adding sugar and certain select spices, testing it out in little paper cups, perhaps with a dish of cheese curd?
Then, once a potent recipe is concocted, massive volumes of mulled oil arming the underbellies of jet fighters, poured into long distance missles, being dispensed in personal grenade form to foot soldiers...
heee heee heee. at least I'm laughing....
Whoever is in charge of writing the truncated headlines for the Yahoo mainpage should be careful with their verbs. One of theirs reads:
Islamic World Mulls Oil as Anti-War Weapon
Now I'm only given to taking things too literally when there is promise of humor, so don't give me any shit; but can't you just see teams of quaint, rustic Islamic scientists heating up vats of oil, adding sugar and certain select spices, testing it out in little paper cups, perhaps with a dish of cheese curd?
Then, once a potent recipe is concocted, massive volumes of mulled oil arming the underbellies of jet fighters, poured into long distance missles, being dispensed in personal grenade form to foot soldiers...
heee heee heee. at least I'm laughing....
Monday, February 24, 2003
mindless excercise for the mind:
About an apple,
Bitten around looking like a
Curvy planet or body of floating
Debris, hung a heroin-colored crust
Enameling by the minute
(For anyone with a timer).
"Got any change, miss?"
He said with a loin-rash un-
Ignored. "Bugger-the-fuck-off," the
Japanese walker balked, underconfident
Killer shoe stems architectually
Lame and calf-stiffening.
Most young speeding lights
Never left or right
Over the frame of stunted photography
Purchase an ID of shaven head and beard,
Quixotic to the last thump of BAC-driven
Rage to find the moist other body
Swiveling to meet our messy vision
To ride our congenial shape until it's
Under the passed-out latitude of a
Velvet decision. I wonder, wonder,
Wonder, wonder who.....whose
Xenophobia cheated chose for them
Yonder blue and white prejudice,
Zig-Zagging the sand like snake-tracks or wind.
Unconsciously Recollected Walk Home from London Clubbing to Albany Street
About an apple,
Bitten around looking like a
Curvy planet or body of floating
Debris, hung a heroin-colored crust
Enameling by the minute
(For anyone with a timer).
"Got any change, miss?"
He said with a loin-rash un-
Ignored. "Bugger-the-fuck-off," the
Japanese walker balked, underconfident
Killer shoe stems architectually
Lame and calf-stiffening.
Most young speeding lights
Never left or right
Over the frame of stunted photography
Purchase an ID of shaven head and beard,
Quixotic to the last thump of BAC-driven
Rage to find the moist other body
Swiveling to meet our messy vision
To ride our congenial shape until it's
Under the passed-out latitude of a
Velvet decision. I wonder, wonder,
Wonder, wonder who.....whose
Xenophobia cheated chose for them
Yonder blue and white prejudice,
Zig-Zagging the sand like snake-tracks or wind.
Unconsciously Recollected Walk Home from London Clubbing to Albany Street
Banned?:
some words just have that poetic weight. are they over-used? CAN they be over-used? Such Words:
NOUNS— sadness, sea, ache, wind, love, lover, smoke, moon, rose
VERBS— love, ache, suffer, soar, blow,
Adjectives— frozen, painful, sad, lonely, dark
This is not to suggest that these are the best words— a unique verb is priceless. Rather, these seem to be "elemental" poetic cornerstones: words that usually render thesaurus searching gaudy/tacky.
Can you help me list more of these words?
Do these words depreciate?
Opine, dammit!
p.s. Of course, there are plenty of common words whose use should be curtailed: emotion, feeling, very, yo, nougat, chit-chat (ok, now it's just personal)
some words just have that poetic weight. are they over-used? CAN they be over-used? Such Words:
NOUNS— sadness, sea, ache, wind, love, lover, smoke, moon, rose
VERBS— love, ache, suffer, soar, blow,
Adjectives— frozen, painful, sad, lonely, dark
This is not to suggest that these are the best words— a unique verb is priceless. Rather, these seem to be "elemental" poetic cornerstones: words that usually render thesaurus searching gaudy/tacky.
Can you help me list more of these words?
Do these words depreciate?
Opine, dammit!
p.s. Of course, there are plenty of common words whose use should be curtailed: emotion, feeling, very, yo, nougat, chit-chat (ok, now it's just personal)
The Monday:
A delicious trio of ache, iced walks, and frustration between two slices of fragrant headache. Your choice of crisp wind, juicy fattening substance, and American or Swiss for toppings. Served with a generous and vital swell of student support and a tall glass of BEER.
For dessert, you might not be able to help yourself from having a slice of disturbing dream in which you see the faces you long to touch, drizzled with chocolate wake-up-and-think-about-solitude sauce.
Mmmmm.
A delicious trio of ache, iced walks, and frustration between two slices of fragrant headache. Your choice of crisp wind, juicy fattening substance, and American or Swiss for toppings. Served with a generous and vital swell of student support and a tall glass of BEER.
For dessert, you might not be able to help yourself from having a slice of disturbing dream in which you see the faces you long to touch, drizzled with chocolate wake-up-and-think-about-solitude sauce.
Mmmmm.
Sunday, February 23, 2003
final inspiration:
An "uninspired" title for an item, I know, but such is what I'm fundamentally lacking.
Tomorrow begins the last week of classes for the trimester; the first week of March is Exam week (with English on Wednesday).
I've been searching for a concept for my final exam, or at least a strategy. What I've come up with so far is handing out four or five groups of different colored paper, each with a heading. Each would start off with appetizer questions (multiple choice type), build with short response, and culminate in a long essay that attempts to synthesize ideas/themes/plots from the prior questions. The students would have to complete all but one of the packets. (the whole color scheme is just dressing, of course, but to me sometimes the details matter too much).
So offer up any suggestions or brilliant ideas. Think about either what kind of English exam you would LIKE to have taken in HS, or about creative ways to torture kids. Thanks.
An "uninspired" title for an item, I know, but such is what I'm fundamentally lacking.
Tomorrow begins the last week of classes for the trimester; the first week of March is Exam week (with English on Wednesday).
I've been searching for a concept for my final exam, or at least a strategy. What I've come up with so far is handing out four or five groups of different colored paper, each with a heading. Each would start off with appetizer questions (multiple choice type), build with short response, and culminate in a long essay that attempts to synthesize ideas/themes/plots from the prior questions. The students would have to complete all but one of the packets. (the whole color scheme is just dressing, of course, but to me sometimes the details matter too much).
So offer up any suggestions or brilliant ideas. Think about either what kind of English exam you would LIKE to have taken in HS, or about creative ways to torture kids. Thanks.
