Thursday, March 17, 2011

Reality Show IQ

Not everyone loves tests quite as much as I do, I know this. I suppose I can understand why not every child got the same rush out of a math problem that I once did. As a recovering television addict, I can also understand both sides of the reality tv hysteria. Although I have somehow managed to survive a few months at this point without cable or a DVR, I can remember a time in recent history where the only thing that could get me out of bed early on a weekday was the knowledge that an episode of Real Housewives was waiting for me on that little machine.

So, what does reality tv have to do with me being a little nerdy? Apparently a lot. The SAT recently used an essay prompt that turned out to be quite controversial...about reality tv!

The 16 year-old in me weeps with excitement.

(As an aside, the SAT has changed quite a bit since most of us took it - it is now scored out of 2400 points, with an added Writing Skills section that includes an essay-writing task).

(As a double aside, I was shocked when I taught my first Kaplan SAT course and was reviewing the kids' practice tests- score after score, 1200, 1450, 1300... I thought they were geniuses. Once you put them on a scale of 2400, they'reactually pretty terrible scores. And that's more like it.)

Anyway, the following prompt appeared on the most recent administration of the SAT:

"Reality television programs, which feature real people engaged in real activities rather than professional actors performing scripted scenes, are increasingly popular.

These shows depict ordinary people competing in everything from singing and dancing to losing weight, or just living their everyday lives. Most people believe that the reality these shows portray is authentic, but they are being misled.

How authentic can these shows be when producers design challenges for the participants and then editors alter filmed scenes?

Do people benefit from forms of entertainment that show so-called reality, or are such forms of entertainment harmful?"
-----------------

Ha! That is awesome... But, apparently, not all of the nerds of America (and their pushy, overprotective parents) are pleased. Check out what one such socially-challenged teen had to say about the test question:


“I ended up talking about Jacob Riis and how any form of media cannot capture reality objectively,” he wrote, invoking the 19th-century social reformer. “I kinda want to cry right now.”

I kind of want to cry just reading this, personally. Jacob whaaa?? Out of virtue of the fact that I personally have no CLUE wtf that kid is talking about , I believe he probably aced the SAT, despite his parents' refusal to allow him to watch MTV - (and, might I add, he probably wanted to "cry right now" because he has no friends).

Meanwhile, the kid who spends a lot of time watching the tube says:

“I talked about American Idol (how it can push people to strive towards better singing skills) and The Biggest Loser (how it influences people to become healthier,)” one commenter, “bandgeek156,” wrote on College Confidential. “Wasn’t that hard from what I thought.”


That sounds like the. worst. answer. ever.


The point is, there's a lot of controversy over this because, well... people like to create controversy where it shouldn't otherwise exist. And, people get really, really, really ridiculously stressed out about this stuff.

The test isn't actually rewarding kids who watch tv over those who do not. One kid talked about Jacob Riis, the Danish social reformer (ok, I googled it), and another about Steven Tyler. It's pretty obvious who's getting into Harvard here. The essay prompt very clearly explains what a "reality show" is for all those living under a rock (the kind of rock under which one could study calculus with a practically religious fervor) and is not at all unfair to those who don't watch tv. In fact, it's quite clear that those who spend more time with Snooki than with their math book will still remain the big failures in the world of the SAT (although, in a very special and ironic twist, they get to walk away at least feeling like they aced the essay, due to their complex analysis of the rocky relationship between Sammie and Ronnie).


Personally, I loved this story... not only because I would have rocked this essay question, but because it just highlights what freaks we've created in an overly-competitive college admissions environment. The real reason some of the kids freaked out is because they spend hours preparing for these tests and anticipating potential questions... and they weren't banking on this one.


One of my favorite comments from the article's Comments section:

I was taking the SAT for the first time Saturday. When I saw the question, I freaked out. I had no clue what to put down. My tutor had told me to use Martin Luther King as an example no matter what the question, and I don’t think he fits too easily into this topic. When I looked at my paper after the test and saw that I had written about Snooki on my SAT test, I felt pretty stupid to be honest.— Sam

______



That is pretty much the best thing I've ever read. What happened to the days of going home from a football game, only to remember you better go to bed early and stop at the convenient store the next day for No. 2 pencils because, oh yeh, the SAT is tomorrow???



Here's another:



As a junior who took the SAT on Saturday, I was infuriated with the prompt. I read the Times daily and I watch the news every night, so I am more than adequately prepared to discuss the disaster in Japan or the leadership issues with Mubarak and Gaddafi. When I saw the prompt, my jaw became slack and my eyes twitched in horror. SAT essays should reference literature and current events, not reality television.— Amanda



___________



Ahh.. delightful.


In closing, I'd like to commend the College Board for not only writing what I think turned out to be kind of an interesting question (which, by the way, I've been thinking about all day), and for laughing in the faces of all the over-privileged children who have actual SAT coaches. Oh, and mostly, for freaking out the lame kids of America, before they get to college and roommates like me have to break them in.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Freedom of Impropriety?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/us/08muskegon.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us&src=me&adxnnlx=1299682840-FWU238xhdI2NVWfWQQjKgg

I saw this article today and it really exemplified what I think is an interesting and, often times troubling, legal issue that is developing with the advent of a more technological society.

In this instance, a young 21 year-old musician in a small Michigan town decided to take on a musical project with some major shock value....not a novel idea for musicians, nor for guys in their early 20's...and in this case, not too smart.

He sang age-appropriate songs to a classroom full of first graders. Afterwards, he sang a far more (sexually) inappropriate song, this time to an empty room, and later edits a video to give the appearance that he sang the second song to a room full of innocent kids.

Inappropriate? Yeh, pretty much. But the response was equally inappropriate. The kid has now been arrested on charges of Child Pornography, facing a lifetime labelled as a sexual predator. A condition of his bond? He can't perform music...adding insult to this First Amendment injury.

The Supreme Court has decided that child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment... But this is continuously misapplied. Another example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

I actually saw this story first on Oprah. Again, it presents what is probably a real issue that needs to be addressed with the young ladies of society (hello, not everyone is Kim Kardashian, and nude photos of you circulating around the playground is not-so-cute)- but, again, is inappropriately addressed by the State.

Young girls were charged with sex crimes for sending nude photos of themselves to their male classmates on their cell phones. Dumb? Totally. Sexual predators? Notsomuch.

The ACLU agreed, and actually took on this case, in an attempt to bar the prosecution from even going forward with the case
(http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/aclu-sues-da-ov/).

Just seems to me that these are all examples of local governments trying to legislate morality. Certainly these young people (essentially children themselves) are not the boogiemen we are so well-trained to fear, lurking in minivans with sugary lures. What then, is the purpose, other than to teach quite a costly (and unfair) lesson?