Dead Poets Society Notes Part Two

Knox goes to the party he was invited to by Chris but she's with her boyfriend and Knox and doesn't know anyone while the dead poets society meets

Knox gets in a fight at the party

Dead poets society is drinking/smoking

Charlie Dalton posts article in the school newspaper from the dead poets society, society is angry with him, Mr. Knowlin of the school calls a meeting to find out who wrote it, charlie pulls a prank

Charlie gets paddled by Mr. Knowlin but stays loyal

Mr. Knowlin reprimands Mr. Keating for teaching the students to think for themselves

Mr. Keating warns Charlie and the guys

Neil's father finds out about his acting and his deception about it, forces him to quit, even though it is the night before the play

Neil talks to Mr. Keating in his living quarters, talks to him about being forced to quit the play, Keating tells him to talk to his father and convince him that acting is what he wants to do

Knox chris at her school and brings her a poem and flowers to apologize for what happened at the party

Neil was successful in talking to his father about acting

Chris comes to the school to see Knox and agrees to go to the play with him

Neil sees his father entering at the play, gets nervous, they stare at each other while he reads his lines

Neil's father is very angry, intends to transfer him to a military school

Neil kills himself

Todd goes crazy

Mr. Keating cries

Mr. Knowlin holds a ceremony for Neil's death and say's hes going to conduct an investigation into the matter

Richard talks to Mr. Knowlin and tells him Mr. Keating was to blame and tells the others they should too, to save themselves. Charlie punches him and gets expelled for it

New English teacher in class asks students to read from the pages Mr. Keating instructed to rip out whilst Mr. Keating is in the room his personal belongings

Todd Anderson stands on his desk and says "Oh Captain, my Captain" before Mr. Keating leaves, others join in until roughly half the class is standing on their desks in defiance, Keating is proud and thanks them

How are Mr. Escalante and Mr. Keating similar? How are they similar?

As I talked about in the previous blog post, Mr. Escalante and Mr. Keating are in completely different environments. Different time period, different kind of school, different kinds of students, and they teach different subjects. However, the teaching styles employed by a teacher are not limited by the kind of school he is teaching at or the subject being taught. The way in which Mr. Escalante teaches his 1980s public high school class of potential drop-outs calculus is similar to the way Mr. Keating teaches his 1950s class of privileged white males English. Both teachers work hard to make their students want to participate in and learn from the class, often using unorthodox methods from Escalante's publicly mocking his students to Keating's games of soccer with his English class. Both are so successful in motivating their students that the students are willing to continue working at the subjects outside of class - in the forms of summer class sessions and after school study sessions from Escalante's calculus class and the reformation of the Dead Poets Society from some of Mr. Keating's English students. The two teachers prove that the qualities which make a good teacher do not at all depend on the subject or the students being taught.

How are the two schools different?

The two different schools depicted in the two films we have watched or are in the process of watching could not really be any more different. A 1950s east-coast all-male private school versus 1980s public high school in Los Angeles. Different class of people, different time period, different location, different type of school. Everything about the two schools is different. I don't even know how they both could be compared, the similarities stop at saying they're both schools for the purpose of educating students. Taking just about any aspect of either school and comparing it to the other gets you a way in which they are different. In many cases the differing characteristics of each school are not even just different, they're the opposite. Rich families versus poor families, private school versus public school, students living on campus and not, strict traditional education teaching subjects such as Latin versus a typical modern public high school. Everything is different.

Notes on Dead Poets Society 

Neil attends an all male college

His roommate is a new student named Todd Anderson

Neil's father is very strict, forces him to quit being the editor for the schools newspaper

English teacher Mr. Keating casually strolls through the class on the first day and then leaves, expecting his students to follow

The class is still standing in the hallway, he has student read poetry, tells his students to seize the day and make their lives extraordinary

The next day, Mr. Keating has Neil read "Understanding Poetry" and then rip the page out of their books, as well as the entire introduction to poetry. He doesn't like trying to measure poetry, wants to teach his students to think for themselves

Kids find old yearbook from when Mr. Keating was in school, mentions him being a member of the Dead Poets Society, question him on what it is

Neil wants to recreate the Dead Poets Society and convinces his group of friends to join him

The new Dead Poets Society convenes after hours

Mr. Keating stands on his desk to remind himself that he must constantly remind himself to look at things in a different way, assigns students to write a poem

Neil wants to be an actor and try out for a part in A Midsummer Night's Dream

Mr. Keating has the students read lines from a poem and then kick a soccer ball?

Neil gets a part in the play, forges a letter from his father giving him permission

Todd didn't write a poem, Mr. Keating inspires him to make something up

Mr. Keating has the english class playing soccer again

The Dead Poets Society reconvenes smoking pipes, someone playing saxophone

Knox Overstreet works up the confidence to call up the Danburry girl

Mr. Keating has his students marching outside to teach them about conformity

Todd's birthday, his parents give him the same desk set as they gave him the previous year, Neil convinces him to toss it off a bridge

Dead Poets Society reconvenes, two girls there with them



The setting of this film is couldn't really be more different than that of the previous one - they are both schools, and then the similarities stop there. Different decade, different type of school, different class of people, nothing is the same. Mr Escalante and Mr. Keating are similar though, both have unorthodox teaching styles and are very good at engaging their students.

Mr .Escalante and Mr. Keating's schools are clearly very different, from their setting, to the students that attend the school. I believe that Mr. Keating's school took place in New England though they don't specify, and Mr. Escalante's school took place in a very Hispanic neighborhood somewhere in San Francisco.
The students in Mr. Escalante's class and school clearly came from very poor families and were never pushed to excel in school and go to college, when obviously Mr. Keating's school and students came from rich environments and were very pressured by their families to ace their school activities and eventually be accepted into very advanced colleges and attain doctorates. The faculty in both schools where also very different, at Mr. Escalante's school the educators had no faith in the student's abilities to succeed and low expectations for the students and never pushed them to attend college or even graduate. The teachers had poor disciplinary skills and only taught the students the basics of each course. On the complete opposite side of the spectrum, Mr. Keating's school is found. In Mr. Keating's school, all the teachers had very high expectations for the students and assumed each and every one of them would not only ace their courses but also graduate into Harvard or some other prestigious school and gain masters or doctorates. Their disciplinary actions where also very strict and worked to control every aspect of the student's lives.

Stand and Deliver Group Notes Part 2

Mr. Escalante shows his dedication to teaching his class when he continues to show up to class when he was supposed to be in the hospital because he had a heart attack from being overworked

He kicked Angel out of class for being late until Angel went to his house with his sick grandmother to explain why he was late

He makes a mistake and one of his students gets mad and leaves but he follows her in the hall and makes up for it

His students present Jaime with a plaque for his teaching and fix up and repaint his car

The students get angry when their scores are questioned which shows that they care about the class as a result of Jaime’s teaching

Because everyone was doubting their success he worries that the students “will lose their confidence in the system which they’re finally qualified for”

Jaime goes to the school board outraged about what happened with his student’s scores and accuses them of discrimination and tells one of them that “If I ever see you on the street, I’ll kick the shit out of you”

After the students decide to retake the test he makes sure to boost their confidence and spends the whole day preparing with them and even takes them to his house and continues studying while making them dinner

His family tells him that they never see him because he’s too dedicated and sacrifices too much for his calculus students

Because of Mr. Escalante’s dedication the school’s students continued taking calculus for the following years and more passed every consecutive year

Stand and Deliver notes part two

The class has to stay late again, girl named Claudia leaves, he accidentally insults her but comforts her in the hallway

Angel's grandmother is sick, can't get her help

Someone is struggling, thinks the class will be better off without him

Angel arrives late and is kicked out of class, gets mad

Family is waiting on Jaime for dinner, wife doesn't want him to teach over the holiday, Angel arrives at the door with his grandmother

Jaime gets mad when his students get a question wrong which should be review, leaves class

Jaime is teaching a language class, leaves the room and collapses down some stairs, difficulty breathing

Pancho and Angel are fighting while waiting for Jaime to arrive to class, substitute teacher arrives, but he's a music teacher. Jaime is in the hospital.

Jaime comes back to class when he's supposed to be in the hospital to prepare for the AP test

Kids are taking the AP test

After the test the students go to the beach, Angel is convinced to join them in the water

All 18 students passed the test, they present a plaque to Jaime

The education board thinks that the class cheated and investigates

Angel and friend get pulled over for taunting a police car, friend tries to start a fight with Angel, Angel walks away

Education board people in the class questioning them about who cheated

Angel jokingly admits to getting the test early, education board people are not amused

Jaime thinks his car is stolen and that he made a mistake teaching the students calculus and becoming a teacher in general, but Angel arrives at his house with his car fixed up and repainted

Jaime complains to the education board people and accuses them of discrimination

Students decide to retake the test, but only have a day to prepare, Jaime believes in them

Some students are studying at Jaime's home while he cooks dinner

Ana leaves during the test retake

All of the students passed the test retake

More students continue to take and pass the AP calculus exam at the high school every following year

the end

Group notes about Stand and Deliver

One of the important things he did was make sure the class respected him. At the start they did not respect him at all but he got their attention and made them listen to and respect him.

He got in the faces of his students and forced them to learn, and embarrassed them when they wouldn’t learn, making inappropriate remarks and even threats.

Made an effort to understand what was happening in the lives of his students and tried to help them personally.

He did a good job at keeping the class interested and making sure to get them to pay attention.

He’s the only teacher in the school that actually believes in the students and wants them to succeed and will go to any lengths to make sure they understand.

An example of his different teaching style, he was trying to get a student named Angel to answer a question, and had to intimidate and embarrass him in front of the class by telling him not to look like a loser in front of the class and that he’d snap his neck like a toothpick if he didn’t answer. This method was successful and boosted his confidence in the class.

During conferences between teachers he speaks his mind even when it offends or angers other teachers, such as when he wants to teach the students calculus and how he needed to hold a summer class to prepare them. The other teachers didn’t believe in him or the students and don’t want him to waste his time on them.

He shows up to a restaurant owned by the family of his student Ana Delgado to understand her life and why she was going to drop out of school. He told her father that she’s the top student in the class and that she wants to go to medical school, and convinced him to let her stay in the class.

Notes on Stand and Deliver

Main character is Jaime Escalante, used to do work with computers but decided he wants to teach instead

He gets to work by driving through the ghetto with music that is stereotypical of movies from the 1980s playing

He was supposed to teach computer science but there aren't computers and there is not computer science course

His class is very attentive

Some of his students do not speak English, but he speaks Spanish

The bell rang several minutes into class and everyone left

Teachers futilely attempting to get people back into class

His radio was stolen during the day

He had another job but wants to teach

He has a wife and a kid

He dresses as a chef, and using a German accent, he slices an apple

Some Mexican students show up late to class, he attempts to teach them multiplication but they threaten him

He later finds them fighting and stops one from joining in

He teaches the students negative numbers

Jaime believes that students will rise to the expectations set

Gives a student extra books so he won't be seen carrying them around

Girl refuses to take the test or do her homework and is made to sit in a chair at the front of the classroom as punishment

Having dinner with the father of one of his students, telling him he should let his daughter continue her education.

Teaching his students algebra

Wants to teach students calculus, requiring them to take prerequisite courses during the summer

Students try to drop a trash can on him, chase ensues, they climb fences to get away

Most students sign up for the calculus class and he begins teaching it

Uses a car analogy to convince one of the students to take calculus instead of dropping out and getting a job in a union

Ignoring most of what Ken Robinson said, I would say that good teaching is teaching for a practical purpose, and a good education is an education that someone can actually make a living out of. Teaching dancing classes to people who enjoy dancing is great but here in the real world, almost everyone who wants to make a career out of dancing is not going to make it. If all your education taught you is basic literacy, mathematics and how to dance, you don't have almost any skills which will earn you a job in a capitalist economy. You can't change education and hope the rest of the world, the system would need to be changed before education could be, and the system isn't going anywhere. The current education system is far from perfect but Ken Robinson's ideas don't help a lot of the issues it faces.

Notes on Ken Robinson's Talk on "How Schools Kill Creativity"

his themes to conference:
extraordinary evidence of human creativity
no idea what is going to happen in the future
a third theme which wasn't mentioned

You can't create anything original if you're afraid to be wrong, and schools make us afraid of being wrong

Kids don't grow into creativity in school, but rather grow out of it

He tells many jokes and stories that are not significant to the purpose of his speech

Every education system on earth has the same subjects

Education systems came into being for industry in the 19th century

Intelligence is dynamic and distinct

Our education system has "mined our minds" the way we mine the earth for a metal

The main thing I wanted readers to understand about my educational experience was how the learning experience affected and shaped me as a person. The learning experience changed the way I think about a lot of things, and how I think about myself, and made me more confident about who I am and what I believe. If I had told the story to someone, and they looked at me and asked "And, so...?" I would finish the sentence "I'm just sayin', all this was significant because..." with "it fundamentally changed how I think about things and who I am." I'd also probably be quite offended at the question because the significance of my learning experience is plainly obvious to me. I don't think anyone I would ever tell that story would question the significance.

Educational Narrative

Everyone has ideas. Everyone has beliefs. Everyone reading this right now, and everyone out there capable of reading this, and even all the people out there who can't read this, they all have their own opinions. For many people, these things are learned - often from their parents, but not always - and once learned, they're seldom changed or altered at all. I used to be like this, but then I learned to think differently, to ask why I believe something instead of what I believe. As a result of this learning experience, I always try to question the reasons behind the way I think about something, and I formulate my beliefs based on logic and rationality rather than emotions or faith.

A few years ago, if someone were to ask me about the way I felt about any topic I had much interest in, I'd probably spit out an answer without much thought. Not that I didn't feel strongly about anything, but rather, I didn't think to question the reason I thought that way. As a result, if someone wanted to argue against my opinion, there often wouldn't be much I had to back it - at least, not rationally. In such an argument, I would most likely use a lot of phrases like "I feel" or "I don't like" instead of something more objective or rational. This way of thinking tends to lead to something called cognitive dissonance, which is where my learning experience really started. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term defined as "the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, esp. as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change." Basically, it is discomfort felt from holding two ideas which conflict with each other. I may not have known that term at the time, but it was crucial for me in the process of learning to question my beliefs and think differently.

I hated that feeling. Everyone does, but most people can ignore it - bury it in their mind, and forget about it. I couldn't do that at all. Once I came to the realization that ideas I held were incompatible, I couldn't get it out of my mind. That feeling of cognitive dissonance ate away at me, and with it, the knowledge that I felt strongly about plenty of things but couldn't rationally justify any of it. By far the most significant example in this learning process, for me, was religion. My parents are religious, and that of course was passed down to me. But when confronted about my beliefs, in trying to justify them, I would ultimately be backed into a corner - the only answer I had was faith. Blind, irrational faith. And if I could not rationally defend my beliefs, how could I ever criticize someone else's? For example, if someone truly believes something as crazy as the Harry Potter world being real, or a more realistic example like believing that one race of people is superior to another, I could not argue against that, because any justification they could give for that would be just as legitimate as my faith. Who am I to say that one irrational belief is any more valid than another? If your only rationale for something is "I have faith" then you cannot truly question someone else using the same reasoning. This line of thinking, of questioning my values and ideas based on rationality, is how I learned to change the way I think. Anything I believed in, I questioned - the reasoning for my opinion, the effect of it, the reasoning of people with opposing ideas - everything. I learned to think about "why" I think something, instead of "what" I think of it - and if the reasons why did not add up via rationality and logic, then I formed new ideas and beliefs.

The result of my learning experience is a complete change in how I think and formulate values, ideas and opinions. Anything I believe in, any opinion about an issue I may have, I always strive to question the logic behind it, and what rational justification I have for it. This method of thinking has also made me much more open to considering the opinions and ideas of other people - questioning my own beliefs naturally leads me to question those of others, instead of just considering them to be right or wrong. For example, my father is extremely opinionated when it comes to politics, is constantly watching news or listening to radio broadcasts which are biased towards his side of the issues, and I frequently find myself disagreeing with his social and political stances. However, I also try to understand them - why he thinks that way, and why I might disagree or agree with it. The experience also resulted in me being more confident about my beliefs and ideas, and who I am in general.  I dislike getting into arguments, and especially dislike arguing about common issues, but I am almost always confident and comfortable in being able to state and support my stance on them, whereas before I went through this learning experience, that was simply not the case.

A few years ago, I held many beliefs and opinions which were irrational, and could only be backed by emotional arguments and faith. Through a feeling of cognitive dissonance, and an inability to support my beliefs rationally, I went through a process of learning to question everything, and to base my ideas on rationality and logic. This process was not short, and I cannot point at any particular time, place or event where any of it happened - it was a gradual and entirely cognitive learning process. But as a result of going through it, I'm now capable of rationally defending my beliefs, I'm more confident about them, and I'm much more open to other people's ideas and trying to understand their perspective.

Educational Narrative Rough Draft

Everyone has ideas. Everyone has beliefs. Everyone reading this right now, and everyone out there capable of reading this, and even all the people out there who can't read this, they all have their own opinions. For many people, these things are learned - often from their parents, but not always - and once learned, they're seldom changed or altered at all. I used to be like this, but then I learned to think differently, to ask why I believe something instead of what I believe. As a result of this learning experience, I always try to question the reasons behind the way I think about something, and I formulate my beliefs based on logic and rationality rather than emotions or faith.

A few years ago, if someone were to ask me about the way I felt about any topic I had much interest in, I'd probably spit out an answer without much thought. Not that I didn't feel strongly about anything, but rather, I didn't think to question the reason I thought that way. As a result, if someone wanted to argue against my opinion, there often wouldn't be much I had to back it - at least, not rationally. In such an argument, I would most likely use a lot of phrases like "I feel" or "I don't like" instead of something more objective or rational. This way of thinking tends to lead to something called cognitive dissonance, which is where my learning experience really started. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term defined as "the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, esp. as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change." Basically, it is discomfort felt from holding two ideas which conflict with each other. I may not have known that term at the time, but it was crucial for me in the process of learning to question my beliefs and think differently.

I hated that feeling. Everyone does, but most people can ignore it - bury it in their mind, and forget about it. I couldn't do that at all. Once I came to the realization that ideas I held were incompatible, I couldn't get it out of my mind. That feeling of cognitive dissonance ate away at me, and with it, the knowledge that I felt strongly about plenty of things but couldn't rationally justify any of it. By far the most significant example in this learning process, for me, was religion. My parents are religious, and that of course was passed down to me. But when confronted about my beliefs, in trying to justify them, I would ultimately be backed into a corner - the only answer I had was faith. Blind, irrational faith. And if I could not rationally defend my beliefs, how could I ever criticize someone else's? For example, if someone truly believes something as crazy as the Harry Potter world being real, or a more realistic example like believing that one race of people is superior to another, I could not argue against that, because any justification they could give for that would be just as legitimate as my faith. Who am I to say that one irrational belief is any more valid than another? If your only rationale for something is "I have faith" then you cannot truly question someone else using the same reasoning. This line of thinking, of questioning my values and ideas based on rationality, is how I learned to change the way I think. Anything I believed in, I questioned - the reasoning for my opinion, the effect of it, the reasoning of people with opposing ideas - everything. I learned to think about "why" I think something, instead of "what" I think of it - and if the reasons why did not add up via rationality and logic, then I formed new ideas and beliefs.

The result of my learning experience is a complete change in how I think and formulate values, ideas and opinions. Anything I believe in, any opinion about an issue I may have, I always strive to question the logic behind it, and what rational justification I have for it. This method of thinking has also made me much more open to considering the opinions and ideas of other people - questioning my own beliefs naturally leads me to question those of others, instead of just considering them to be right or wrong. For example, my father is extremely opinionated when it comes to politics, is constantly watching news or listening to radio broadcasts which are biased towards his side of the issues, and I frequently find myself disagreeing with his social and political stances. However, I also try to understand them - why he thinks that way, and why I might disagree or agree with it. The experience also resulted in me being more confident about my beliefs and ideas, and who I am in general.  I dislike getting into arguments, and especially dislike arguing about common issues, but I am almost always confident and comfortable in being able to state and support my stance on them, whereas before I went through this learning experience, that was simply not the case.

A few years ago, I held many beliefs and opinions which were irrational, and could only be backed by emotional arguments and faith. Through a feeling of cognitive dissonance, and an inability to support my beliefs rationally, I went through a process of learning to question everything, and to base my ideas on rationality and logic. This process was not short, and I cannot point at any particular time, place or event where any of it happened - it was a gradual and entirely cognitive learning process. But as a result of going through it, I'm now capable of rationally defending my beliefs, I'm more confident about them, and I'm much more open to other people's ideas and trying to understand their perspective.

Out of the five assigned educational narratives, Malcolm X's "Learning to Read" excerpt was by far my favorite. It's an interesting and inspirational story, and it's written in a clear and to-the-point manner. I simply don't have any bad things to say about it. Compared to this story, all of the other articles had their own flaws which weren't really present in "Learning to Read". To start, Feross Aboukhadiejeh's blog post was definitely a runner-up for being my favorite, the only problem being that his story with learning to program is a lot less inspirational and can't be as relatable to as many people as learning to read. The whole premise of "How I Learned to Live Google-Free" is flawed, in that it is all based on the assumption that relying on Google as a search engine or YouTube as a video streaming website is somehow bad. I don't agree with that at all, and it really invalidates much of what Joshua Romero has to say in his article. That aside, the topic is still very specific and quite meaningless compared to any of the other four narratives, and I would argue that it is unquestionably the worst of the five assigned readings. "How I Learned to Love Traveling Solo" suffers from the same issue: the target audience of people who are both interested in and have the opportunity to travel alone is very small; I could not relate to anything in the article. And finally, we have Mike Rose's excerpt about his early education. The problem here is I don't have any idea who Mike Rose is, so by default I'm already not particularly interested in his education, and when the majority of the excerpt is spent describing in great detail his class mates and teachers instead of anything that is actually pertinent to the reader, I cared even less after finishing the reading. None of these critiques can be applied to Malcolm X's writing, which is why I say it is my favorite of the five.

So far I've been assigned to read five difference educational narratives, and they've all had various similarities, and all have had their differences. Some of the most obvious ways they differ are in the author's tone and writing style, and in the subject they're writing about. While they're all about learning experiences, each was different, and they varied in magnitude; from something as essential as learning to read, to something as inconsequential as learning to live without Google products. The seriousness of the subject also impacts the tone of the writing, which is another way the narratives differ: the tone of "Learning to Read" is always very strong, and solemn; "How I Learned to Program Computers", on the other hand, is written as more of a guide directed at anyone who might find themselves reading, and as such the tone is more agreeable and inviting. The writing styles and formats all differ as well, but that results more from the author and the method of publication rather than the content of the writing.

The process of my learning experience:

I intend on writing my first essay about my educational experience of learning to form ideas and beliefs and to substantiate my beliefs with logic and rationality rather than with emotions. The process mostly started with cognitive dissonance - the feeling of holding two conflicting ideas. The discomfort of cognitive dissonance came from holding beliefs or having ideas which I could not support - there was a lack of clear, rational and logical thought behind what I believed. There were ideas I held where, despite being something I may have felt strongly about, I simply could not back up. If I had to argue for my stance or belief, I could not hope to win. The feeling of cognitive dissonance led to questioning my stances on everything, and analyzing it with logic and rationality. Ultimately, my learning experience progressed to me being able to back up, support, articulate, and argue anything which I believe firmly without faith or emotions.

Cubing Practice

Goat Association:

Goats can be associated both with agrarian societies who use goats as livestock for producing meat, diary, and wool. They can also be associated with nomad societies who herded goats as livestock for the same reasons. Most goats, both wild and domesticated, are part of the genus Capra, which includes nine species of goats. However mountain goats are a separate genus but can still be associated with regular goats. All goats have distinctive rear-facing horns, and can be associated with other animals which have horns. Their use as livestock can relate it to other farm animals such as cows, pigs and horses. The Angora breed of goats produces hair which is used as wool and can be associated with sheep.

Finger Paint Comparison:

Finger paint compared to regular paint:

Finger paint is applied with the fingers, paint is not.

Finger paint is used only for artwork, paint is not.

Finger paint is typically used by children, paint is not.

Finger paint is generally only used to color something; paint is also often used to protect objects or to provide texture.

Finger paint is always non-toxic due to its application; paint has historically been made with harmful substances.

Finger paint does not allow for great detail for artwork, paint does.

"How I Learned to Love Traveling Solo" by Cate Hunston details the author's experiences with traveling alone and is written as a guide do it too. Personally I've always been quite unsociable and so a guide on how to travel alone is rather meaningless to me; I don't have anyone I would want to travel with anyway. A guide on how for traveling in general would be much more appropriate. As an educational narrative and a blog post it follows a similar pattern as some of the earlier narratives I've read. Everything is in very specific sections, rather than written in say, paragraph form. These sections are pertinent and no attempt is really made at linking them together; they're all just about the same topic overall.

One problem with this article is that traveling, to the author, seems to be pretty much just a hobby. One key aspect of most of the other educational narratives is that they're all talking about learning something that is very important to the author. Basic education, or perhaps programming computers to someone who works as a programmer, are crucial. Malcom X wouldn't be commonly known name if he was illiterate. The author of this article, on the other hand? She'd probably still be writing articles if she never spent a day in her life traveling solo.

I recently compared Malcom X's "How I Learned to Read" to the first two educational narratives I blogged about. But, as it turns out, I was supposed to compare it to a different narrative, titled "I Just Wanna Be Average" by Mike Rose, so I'll do that, too. First of all, I simply cannot stand the writing style of Mike Rose. Being forced to read entire novels written like that was single-handedly enough to make me detest high school English classes at times. The sheer amount of completely unnecessary details that turn one sentence worth of significant information into one page just irritates me. Perhaps I'm too pragmatic but I really don't care that his Spanish I teacher was short, for example. He's not even relevant to the story; he doesn't actually need to be mentioned, and the fact that he's short certainly doesn't need to be there. Details are great, useless details not so much, and a saturation of useless details is horribly annoying to read. I learned more relevant information from a single page with constant spacing from Malcom X than three pages with no spacing from Mike Rose.

That aside, the message in both narratives is very similar. Both had inadequate educational opportunities, both were inspired to make the most of it and became successful in their endeavors. They differ in that teaching yourself literacy in prison is not quite the same as attending some Catholic school, but the results are certainly comparable.

Most Important Learning Experience

Learning English was crucial in being able to learn anything else, so that's the most important thing I've ever learned. There are more basic things I've learned such as walking and motor functions but it's certainly possible to get where I am with physical disabilities, but without being able to read, write, speak and understand English, it just couldn't happen.

I'm only posting this to make my blog less desolate.

The excerpt "Learning to Read" from The Autobiography of Malcolm X details how Malcolm X gained literacy from studying in prison, and with it, a love of books and reading. Like the previous two articles, it is a narrative about someone's experience with learning something. One of the major differences, however, is that it is much less focused on what is being learned and how to learn it, but rather, the experience of learning it. Feross Aboukhadijeh's writing is practically a guide, and "How I Learned to Live Google-Free" is not far from it, but Malcolm X is obviously not trying to teach the reader how to read. Instead, he focuses on his motivations for doing it, and the prison environment he learned in. There's nothing in the previous two articles that can compare to feigning sleep when guards walk by after-hours, only to return to reading once they passed; and it's details like this which, in my opinion, make Malcolm X's writing much more interesting than that of the other two authors. Additionally, teaching yourself literacy in a prison cell is a great deal more impressive than going a week without Google products; the learning to read excerpt is very inspirational, much more so than the other educational narratives.