Bell Curve and Average

If you buy into the concept that there is a social or educational "average" than I think it is important for everyone to be above average. No one likes to believe that they are in the middle of the pack or even behind everyone else.
The term average comes from measuring statistics. The average is the middle for a group of data. I don't think this is something that can be applied to humans. You may be able to measure how a student does on a test compared to other students on that same test. But that is not a measure of the students mental capacity. That is merely a measure of how students did on that specific test.
If I'm being completely honest right now, in terms of education I've been called above average my entire life. In fact, in elementary school I used to be pulled from class to go into a gifted program. Looking back at that I am grateful but also disgusted at the same time. According to the school system, I was deemed exceptional and was given an opportunity for higher learning at a young age. This was a huge advantage for me but was not offered for every student. This program was only for kids "above average." But can the school systems really determine who is average? Maybe other students just learned at different rates. Maybe they had other teachers that didn't prepare them as well. That didn't mean I was smarter than them. On the flip side, I think it gave me an ego. I think I started to slack from that point. I realized I was ahead of other students test score wise so I didn't try as hard. I think this measuring and comparison is a great discredit to the school system. School should be about growth and development. There is no "average" if every student learns. Thats the purpose of school. To get the most out of each student. Sorting students only hurts those that the schools think aren't above average. And with that attitude, according to the schools, they may never be.

The Bell Curve

"In this essay, Lynn Fendler and Irfan Muzaffar argue that the existing critiques of bell-curve thinking ring true for people who believe that the purpose of schooling is to promote a more equitable redistribution of resources in society; however, these arguments do not criticize the law-like character assumed for a bell curve as a representation of social reality." Here the writer points out that the bell-curve has its purpose for equally redistributing resources; however, they believe it is not an accurate representation of social reality.


"In this essay, we do not assume that schools are necessarily institutionsof reproduction, although we do acknowledge that reproduction is one of many things that can happen in schools."  The writer says that schools can often reproduce this curve, but it is not something that people should just assume.


"to undermine the allegedly realist basis for sorting, namely, the assumption that a bell-curve distribution is normal" The writer is agreeing with others that the bell-curve is not an accurate description of the distribution of "normal" in society.

Discourse Community Videos

I think all of the videos qualify to be discourse communities. All sports seem to fall into their own discourse community but I'll focus in on the cheerleader video. To start, of the videos I watched, the cheerleader video had a different presentation. The other videos were more explanations of their communities. The cheerleaders' was a collage of what appeared to be the culmination of their season. To me, this is the basis of that community. Everything is about presentation. The cheerleader community prides itself on being exclusive. Granted, anyone that wants to be a cheerleader could be one. But that's the aura around them, not everyone wants to be a cheerleader. So those who do become cheerleaders are a part of that exclusive club. Once a cheerleader, forever a cheerleader. And what is so appealing about that? The attention. I think that determines their success. Once you're a part of the squad people start to look at you differently. Not because you've changed, but you now have a new status. It brings more attention. At games, they draw attention away from the players. In the hallways at school, they "dress up" so boys notice them. And at competitions, it's about looking the best and most coordinated to be deemed the best squad. Discourse communities are not about being better than others, they are about be special and individualized by their own beliefs. And becoming a part of a cheerleading squad changes status. And the better that squad does at competitions, the higher the status of that squad. And by no means am I saying that cheerleaders are egotistical. But to be a part of this community means drawing attention to yourself and the status you hold. You want everyone to know you are a part of this community and take great pride in it.

Membership and Power in Groups

Working at Lifetime Fitness would be the most obvious discourse community. As far as beliefs go, we are all required to memorize the mission and vision of the company. Lifetime is known as the "healthy way of life company" and we are all expected to be on board with it and promote it. We provide healthier choices in the cafe and during our camps we give the children healthy snacks. There is also a set language among team members, members and guests. People need to be able to reference classes, equipment and scheduling. Within each department provides additional layers to the language. In my department, kids activities, we deal with children which involves a certain demeanor.
The people who are in charge are the rule enforcers. The higher up you go, the more power equals the stricter they are with the rules. The club even has audits to make sure we are on top of our game. The leaders have "huddles" everyday to make sure the club is running smoothly. The balance of power has a trickle down effect. If the person at the top is unhappy, it works its way to the bottom to resolve the issue. If rules are broken, they are automatically corrected. People aren't just thrown aside if they break a rule, the company tries to correct behavior to maintain good employees. However, people can be taken out of this community. Not only can team members be fired, but paying members can be asked to leave if they are not following the rules. Lifetime wants everyone to be happy and if someone is disturbing that balance they will be kicked out.
In order to gain power, you have to be an advocate of the rules. Lifetime loves to promote from within. And they want people who want to be a part of the company. If you work hard and follow the rules you are bound to move up. The more you can demonstrate enforcement of the rules, the more they can see you are a team player and "a part of the company."

Inventory of Groups

Within my family there can be several discourse communities. As a brother, son, and nephew I interact with each member differently. Each of my classes involve different communities: political science, english, computer science, math and education. Even my job has different ones. I am a Lifetime Fitness team member, a coworker, a supervisor and a teacher to the children. There's also the sports community. Within that there are football fans, basketball fans, baseball fans and hockey fans. And even those can be differentiated by teams.

10 year expert

According to Gladwell, 10,000 hours, among other things, is what it takes to become a master in something. So the question before me is: what would I become a master of if I had the choice? I think people's first reaction is to say something selfish. Not that they are selfish, but it's human nature to look after oneself first. I could say something like the stock market so I could become rich or medicine so I would never be sick a day in my life. But the people Gladwell mention all had something in common: they used their expertise to give back. Bill Joy revolutionized computers and Bill Gates personalized them. Without them we would probably still be years behind. Even The Beatles gave us joy and inspiration with their music. So if I were to become an expert in something, I would want it to be in something that could help people. And honestly, the first thing that comes to mind is love. And I'm not saying love because I want to give women endless pleasure. I'm talking about true love. I think it goes without saying that we all want to find that special person we could spend the rest of our lives with, yet so few of us actually find them. Divorce rates are higher than ever in this country. And seldom do people think about the effect that has on their children. But there are people who do find that special someone. So what is it that they do differently that the rest of us haven't figured out? Marriages that last 50 years seem to be going out of fashion like black and white television. Some of the younger generation have never even heard of black and white t.v. So that is that bound to happen with love too? There has to be something that everyone is missing. It can't be just pure luck. Are our priorities not in place? Or do people just quit too easily? I feel this is a huge gap in society. If people were able to face their emotions and find love, the world would be a much better place. Everyone is happier when they feel love. So why isn't it expressed more? If this was something I could master, I would share it with the entire world. I think it would change everyone's outlook on life and hopefully make it a better place.

In Malcolm Gladwell's writing "The Matthew Effect," he almost completely dismisses the idea of "being born with talent." Gladwell, however, believes that in things such as sports and education, the elite rise up through one common factor: when they were born. At first glance, one would disregard this idea, especially Americans. As Americans, we are raised being told that we can be anything that we want when we grow up. "You could be president one day," our parents say, "all it takes is hard work." Gladwell, however, would chime in and tell our parents we are fools. And I believe there is some merit to his point. Hard work and determination can take a person as far as they want in life. Yet those born at certain times of the year are given certain advantages. 

Gladwell's focus started with hockey. The cutoff date being January 1 and those born closest to this date being given the biggest advantage. I think Gladwell is right in the sense that someone born January 1, 2012 will have a maturity advantage over someone born December 31, 2012. A lot of growth and maturity can happen in a 12 month span. I think the best the analogy Gladwell used was his tree analogy. If you plant 100's of seeds all in the same area, one will end up being the tallest and strongest. But why? Whichever seed sprouts first, will rise to the surface first. It will then receive the most sunlight and catch the most rain. As time goes on, it will already be taller than the other sprouts. Therefore, the first sprouted seed will begin to take away sunlight from the other plants. This is Gladwell's point in sports. The kids born closest to the cutoff date will be the most mature kids. They should be the biggest and smartest. And these are the kids that will get bumped up and receive better coaching and competition (sunlight and water).

I can't help but wonder if I would be more skeptical of Gladwell's proposal if I myself had not received this same advantage. When I was younger, the cutoff date for school was in September. I was always one the oldest kids in class being my birthday was in the first month of the school year. And in elementary school, I was also put in the gifted programs. But was I not special at all? Was I given preferential treatment just because I was older? As much as I agree with Gladwell's proposal, I don't believe people are just statistics. Given certain opportunities, people can be born with greater advantages in life, and being born near the cutoff dates is one of them. But I cannot completely turn my back on the notion that hard work and determination can take you anywhere in life. The kids may be given a head start, but the truly gifted, no matter what age, will conquer in the end.