Let me preface this blog post by saying that I really enjoyed feature writing! I can't quite decide which I enjoy more, news writing, feature writing, or creative writing. I think I will continue to do all three! The most important thing I think I learned in feature writing is how to make my writing a bit more fun and colorful without straying too far from the topic. I have a hard time striking a balance between logic and creativity; a lot of times I will be a little wild and creative if I don't have an agenda or deadline to meet, but I tend to try and stay in between the lines if I do. Feature writing for me was incredibly fun and challenging because I did learn to mix the two, and I got to practice having fun with my writing without losing the point of it. The second most important thing I learned was how to cut things from my writing. I would often get my stories back for this class and see certain words that were cut out. I would get good grades, and the story itself would be really good, but I would look back over it and think, "oh yea, it does sound better without that word!". So I really just learned to reread my writing a bit more closely, and write just a little more concisely (some words don't have to be there; if they add nothing to the story, take them out!). The third most important thing I learned was about the different types of features and news stories. I'll be honest here, I followed news people on twitter and that's how I got my news. I never read the newspaper. However, now that I know more about features and stories and profiles and all that jazz, I have a new respect for the newspaper, and therefore am more interested in it. I actually even read the front page, and a bunch of features from the sections of the news I'm interested in. Even if it's not as efficient as twitter, it's still pretty awesome.
My writing has improved immensely over the course of this quarter. I have learned how to better edit, and how to catch things I previously probably wouldn't have caught. Believe it or not, I have learned to be a bit more concise (I know, hard to believe, since I just love words so much!) and not ramble on or be repetitive when talking about one topic. I learned how to be fun and exciting when I write without letting my opinions glare through and without making it overwhelming and distracting from the actual news story.
Of all the feature writing styles, I think I liked writing the profile most. I really enjoyed basically everything I did, but it was really fun for me to interview someone and just note everything about them, and turn it into a story! I adore people and getting to know them, so for me that was just a lot of fun, and I really enjoyed it. I honestly really enjoyed doing basically everything in feature writing, but if I had to pick my least favorite part, I would have said it was the short-form. Weird, I know. Clearly I should never go into graphic design. I think it may be because I'm not a terribly visual person, so thinking of some short, visual ways to present a story that I personally worked really hard on writing was difficult. I think in words, and I love words. Short pictures and graphs aren't my thing. The event story was also a little bit difficult for me. I still enjoyed it; it wasn't my least favorite thing, but it was challenging for me to put the mood and scene of an event into words. Not that I didn't like the challenge though :)
What's next for me? Good question! I wish I knew. I'm planning to continue to write for fun, and to work on my creative writing over them summer. Also, I may just keep a blog this summer; I'm planning to travel quite a bit, so that would be a great way for me to quickly keep practicing my writing. I also plan to write for La Voz in the coming fall! It sounds like a lot of fun, and a great experience, even if I don't go into journalism!
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Blog #9
An editiorial I found that I whole-heartedly disagree with is an editorial about our education system located here. Essentially what this article says is that Latino and African-American children are not being properly educated in Algebra in 8th grade. However, Asian and white children are at a much higher proficiency rating. It points out that charter schools have a much higher rate of proficiency in 8th grade Algebra one, and we need to change our school system to better prepare kids for college.
Now, I am incredibly passionate about education. I want to be a teacher or open a charter school for goodness sake! And I do agree with this article in that I think our school systems don't work, and that they need to be reformed. However, I don't think the race of the student matters as much, nor do I think the government can implement many programs to help, other than to completely change the entire school system. First of all, parents need to be more involved in their child's schooling. That's a given. And it's not even mentioned in the article. But that's the least of my worries.
The thing that tells whether or not these students are proficient is a standardized test. Some students are not very good test takers, whereas other students are. I could almost always get good grades on tests regardless of whether or not I studied, whereas my little brother almost always failed, regardless of how much he studied. That's not entirely fair. Also, if these kids aren't doing well in school, maybe someone should take a long hard look at their teachers. After all, the teacher's responsibility is to teach. And I can't tell you how many times I had a tenured teacher that taught us absolutely nothing.
But the thing that bothers me the most about this article is the solutions presented. First of all, they define education as the ability to get into college. Anyone can get into college if they memorize the facts and then just forget them. Last I checked, to educate someone you're actually teaching them a life skill that they will retain, not just training them to do well enough to get into a college so they can be up to their ears in debt and owe tons of money to the government. The whole idea that the goal of education is to get as many kids as possible to college disgusts me. Education should be about teaching kids something valuable and allowing them to do with that what they will. The ultimate goal may be college, but the primary goal should be learning. Let's keep in mind here that people can be successful and happy with or without a college degree. Hello, Steve Jobs anyone? I also really hate the fact that this article points out charter school that are doing well, and public schools that aren't. Charter schools are awesome, but they're alternative education. Instead of saying, "hey, here's a silver lining this charter school is doing well, let's make some more!", we should be focusing on the fact that our traditional schools are sucking pretty badly, and reform those to include more innovation and be altogether a more student centered environment. Given, that can be achieved by taking a few pointers from charter schools, but we need to reform our entire school districts, not just implement some halfway finished government programs. Of course, to reform our schools, we'd actually have to be funding them. But that's a whole other argument...
Now, I am incredibly passionate about education. I want to be a teacher or open a charter school for goodness sake! And I do agree with this article in that I think our school systems don't work, and that they need to be reformed. However, I don't think the race of the student matters as much, nor do I think the government can implement many programs to help, other than to completely change the entire school system. First of all, parents need to be more involved in their child's schooling. That's a given. And it's not even mentioned in the article. But that's the least of my worries.
The thing that tells whether or not these students are proficient is a standardized test. Some students are not very good test takers, whereas other students are. I could almost always get good grades on tests regardless of whether or not I studied, whereas my little brother almost always failed, regardless of how much he studied. That's not entirely fair. Also, if these kids aren't doing well in school, maybe someone should take a long hard look at their teachers. After all, the teacher's responsibility is to teach. And I can't tell you how many times I had a tenured teacher that taught us absolutely nothing.
But the thing that bothers me the most about this article is the solutions presented. First of all, they define education as the ability to get into college. Anyone can get into college if they memorize the facts and then just forget them. Last I checked, to educate someone you're actually teaching them a life skill that they will retain, not just training them to do well enough to get into a college so they can be up to their ears in debt and owe tons of money to the government. The whole idea that the goal of education is to get as many kids as possible to college disgusts me. Education should be about teaching kids something valuable and allowing them to do with that what they will. The ultimate goal may be college, but the primary goal should be learning. Let's keep in mind here that people can be successful and happy with or without a college degree. Hello, Steve Jobs anyone? I also really hate the fact that this article points out charter school that are doing well, and public schools that aren't. Charter schools are awesome, but they're alternative education. Instead of saying, "hey, here's a silver lining this charter school is doing well, let's make some more!", we should be focusing on the fact that our traditional schools are sucking pretty badly, and reform those to include more innovation and be altogether a more student centered environment. Given, that can be achieved by taking a few pointers from charter schools, but we need to reform our entire school districts, not just implement some halfway finished government programs. Of course, to reform our schools, we'd actually have to be funding them. But that's a whole other argument...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)