In conclusion…

In January, we set forth on this experiment: to see if the writing requirements of an Introduction to Sociology course could be satisfied using the format of a blog.  In the past, I’ve asked students to write eight papers over the course of the semester–all only several pages long, and with almost exactly the same grading criteria (as the blog), save two.  First, I have always told students in pretty specific terms what topic they must discuss in their essays.  On the blog, the only topical constraint was that you link your blog post to the assigned readings of the week.  Second, the old course requirements produced written work that only passed between you and I–unless you volunteered to have someone else look at your writing, I was the only one who read it.  On the blog, your prose and your thoughts were opened to the world’s eyes.

Now it is my task to evaluate how these differences impacted the quality of the course.  My initial thoughts are these:

1. I think the quality of the writing and research in the blog format was far superior to anything I have read in about a dozen sections of the course.  There were stronger and weaker posts, of course.  And the comments or responses were pretty weak, overall.  But I think the posts were better thought out and supported with evidence than the average paper in the past.  I can attribute this to several factors (less overall writing in the course, fear of embarrassment, collaborative work, good modeling by other students), so I’ll have to figure out if the blog format was a necessary (and/or sufficient) condition for this outcome.

2. The conversation drift toward consensus bothers me.  It seemed most issues produced only one point of view.  Since I think sociology is a discipline–and this class is a forum–in which multiple viewpoints contribute to more robust understandings, I’m tempted to view the “comments” as a pedagogical failure.

3. I was surprised at how much difficulty many of you had figuring out the technology.  Even after sending out multiple emails that included directions on how to post and comment, and links to wordpress’s step-by-step directions, we still had loads of last minute “how do I…?” emails.  Answering these requests drains our instructor resources–it literally takes time away from more and interesting work we could do for you, so that was a bummer.

4. While we did have some comments from people outside the course, I’d rather have a lot more public discussion take place.  I should probably think about ways to stimulate that.  One thing that would clearly have to change is that posters would be responsible for monitoring the comments on their post and responding in order to spur dialogue, resolve confusion, and add new ideas.  I did have students approach me complaining about others’ misunderstandings of their  post, and I never really understood why they didn’t just engage those commenters on the blog.

5. It is important, I think, that the conversation in the blog influence and be influenced by, the conversations in class.  While I tried to draw upon online conversations in class discussions, my questions were rarely engaged by you.  Moreover, I don’t remember any student ever drawing upon blog conversations in their comments in class.  This disconnect suggested to me that students just valued the blog as a mechanism to earn a grade, but not as a forum for learning.  That is perhaps the most serious concern I have about using the blog format in future sections.

I know you’re completing your instructor reviews right now, but there’s no question on that survey that would solicit your opinions about specific aspects of our class.  I really do welcome your thoughts on this topic, and hope you’ll post them in the comments.  If you’d rather discuss it one-on-one, just let me know.

Thanks for your hard work on this experiment.  Good luck in the future.

Prof Lena

The Debate: Intelligent Design or Evolution by Natural Selection

Are scientists trying to prove that evolution is ‘true’? If so, what is truth? Philosophers have been arguing this question longer than scientists have been concerned with evolution. If science is concerned with the analysis of objective data, what is the scientific definition of truth? Truth carries the implication of permanence, of being correct without exception. In the intelligent designer’s paradigm, being correct may or may not allow speculation to be truth-apt. If there is an exception, the concept cannot be true. Conversely, is evolution correct? Has it been scientifically proven? If we take scientific proof as the simplest explanation of the observed, pertinent fact (note that evolution is not a fact, but rather an explanation of facts), then it has been proven. Stephen Jay Gould, in his article “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” argues that there is a common misconception that a theory is less ‘true’ than a ‘fact’. In scientific terms, facts are simply data, theories, and structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Theories are never fully ‘proven,’ but can be adapted and changed as new facts and data become available. Shifting towards the controversy between intelligent design and evolution, a publicly recognized conception and understanding of truth and fact seem to be a topic of great disagreement. Centuries before Charles Darwin was born, the idea persisted that an organism’s complexity proved the existence of a supernatural creator. Until Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, the concept that the natural world contains abundant evidence of a cosmic designer was promoted. Intense controversy arises today with the attempt to determine whether or not evolution by natural selection or creation by intelligent design shaped the way organisms currently exist; this debate will remain in the realm of speculation among scientists supporting evolutionary theory and among proponents of a supernatural Designer. Here, boundary work plays a more than perfect role in this debate: By definition, boundary work refers to an ideological obstacle of differentiating between what is science and what is non-science (Conley 2008, p. 667). As such, questions form regarding how life has evolved on Earth versus why life exists (Brinton 2009, p. 11A). Granted the strength of Darwin’s evidence and countless other sources have continued to convince scientists that evolution by natural selection makes clear life’s diversity and complexity, opposition to evolutionary concepts still lingers in some areas of scientific discourse.

Bankrupt: American health care reform in the current economic crisis

According to Conley (627), the most common reason for individuals to file for bankruptcy is because of health problems in the family. Ironically, the companies that formerly provided health care to their employees to keep them out of that situation are now going bankrupt. Thousands of Americans are finding themselves without jobs, without healthcare, and without a way to provide for their families. In an interview with the Star Ledger, Robert Meehan of Horizon BlueCross BlueShield said that healthcare between jobs is crucial, because an ER visit can cost over one thousand dollars. These visits can be incredibly damaging to a family working on little over a thousand dollars a month.

Injustice in a Socialized Health Care Society

A study was conducted by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) in Canada that tried to determine if inequality exists in a society with socialized healthcare. That is to say, do different classes of people have equal opportunity in regards to receiving MRI scans? The results demonstrated that the affluent citizens of Ontario were 25% more likely to receive an MRI than the poor citizens. One factor that could describe this discrepancy could be the long wait times Canadians have between a doctor’s consult and the actual MRI. To try to combat this problem the Canadian government implemented a plan to install more MRI machines in hospitals, increasing the number of scans performed while simultaneously reducing the wait time. After the government spent $118 million on this plan, the statistics showed that rich Ontarians were now 38% more likely to get an MRI scan over the poor citizens. The plan to make MRIs more available to all the citizens of Ontario actually widened the gap between the rich and the poor instead of narrowing it. This can be seen as an example of unintentional consequences. These are defined as the unforeseen effects that come about after the implementation of a policy. These effects are typically negative, and work against the goal of the policy. This drastic increase in the availability of MRIs, while originally intended to help everyone, only helped the rich for a couple of reasons. Dalton Conley in You May Ask Yourself concludes that, in general, wealthy and highly educated individuals tend to lead healthier lifestyles. This could account for the results of the study as a health conscious person might seek an MRI. Also, as the government increased the number of machines available to the general public, awareness of this plan could have permeated the circles of the upper class citizens more drastically than those in the lower class. Or more simply the upper class could have been more aware of the current health policies being made in their area. Also, most of the MRIs installed were put into hospitals in the wealthier parts of town, giving the rich more access to better medical care. All factors for inequality considered, it is interesting that the wealthy would need more health care than the poor in the first place. ICES scientist Dr. John You puts it, “It is well known that poor people have more health problems than the rich, so the trends go against what we would have expected.” It seems that although inequality is a major factor in this situation, the flaws in the system are more complex.

What is Poverty?

In a study done in 2003 entitled A Sociological Analysis of Poverty in the United States, college student Sarah Gardner-Cox analyzed family structures and racial factors that might be associated with poverty. (http://www.millsaps.edu/socio/PDFs/gardnercox2004.pdf) Using data from the US Census Bureau, Gardner-Cox argued—as many other studies have also suggested—that there is a definite linkage between minority families and poverty. Statistics show Black and Hispanic family poverty to be much greater than that of white or Asian families. While only 8.1% of white or Asian families experienced poverty in 2001, 21.4% of blacks and 20.2% of Hispanics lived under the poverty line in this year. Furthermore, Gardner-Cox found distinctly persuasive statistics lending to the idea that the structure of the family (married-couple, single-father, or single-mother) is also strongly correlated to poverty. Mother-led households are distinctly more likely to experience poverty than the father-led or married couple counterparts. Perhaps the most interesting trend that Gardner-Cox’s analysis brings to light, is the fact that these differences in poverty have held pretty steady, even with the drastic declines in the overall poverty rate since the 1960s.

Millionaire Matchmaker

Historically, the upper class has been composed of the aristocracy, the wealthy, the elite, and the landowners. The only way to join this sphere was by birth or occasionally through marriage. According to Bravo TV’s “Millionaire Matchmaker,” however, these days, being a member of the upper class really is just as easy as getting hitched.

Middle-Class Millionaires

Although forms of stratification vary throughout the world, perhaps the most prevalent in modern American society is that of the status hierarchy system, in which people are ranked based on their social prominence and the value of their lifestyles (Conley 556). Unlike in a system based on political or religious factors, upward social mobility is highly possible for those in a status hierarchy system. As Conley suggests, “Often, individuals seek to assert their status or increase their status not just through their occupation but also through their consumption, memberships, and other aspects of how they live” (Conley 557). One interesting example of a large group of people increasing their status can be found in the gradual stratification of the middle class. In Thomas Kostigen’s 2008 MarketWatch article, The ‘middle-class millionaire’: Those with net worth of $1 million to $10 million reshape U.S. culture, the author sheds light on how a growing upper middle class is making lifestyle choices that were once available only to the elite upper class. According to a recent study by Russ Alan Prince and Lewis Schiff, “7.6% of American households [. . .] are middle-class millionaires” and “62% believes that networking, or knowing many people, is the key to financial success” (Kostigen). Middle-class millionaires often work long hours to earn their “new-money” status, and place great importance on their children’s academic success. In fact, “Seventy-five percent of this group chose their home because of its school system” (Kostigen).  To these parents, having a child who attends an Ivy League university is just as valuable of a status symbol as having a high income.

Racialization and Hollywood

Movies offer a sense of “escape from reality” for their audiences. They take the audience away from everyday surroundings and instead offer a more ideal and entertaining version. However, reality is not completely lost in these depictions. Characters, settings, and scripts maintain aspects recognizable in society, as moviemakers must create characters with developing plots that are understandable and intriguing to the audience. Stereotypes, oversimplified sets of beliefs presumed to describe the “typical” member of a social group, are often used to create characters. It is usually very obvious which stereotype the characters are fulfilling because the creators intentionally use features of the group that are obvious and prominent. This follows the Salience Principle as the viewer categorizes characters based on their obvious outward appearances. Essentially movies perpetuate stereotypes because the viewer consumes the information and carries it over these descriptions in reality.

America’s Culture of Segregation

The United States, with each passing year, has become an increasingly pluralistic society. Dalton Conley, in You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist, defines such a society as one with “several unique and different ethnic groups” (p. 519). According to the 2000 census, the most represented foreign-born population in America since the 1980’s has been Mexico, with a whopping “7.48 million” (p. 519). However, immigrants to this country are often met with racism. This “belief that members of separate races possess different and unequal traits” (p. 491) has permeated American society ever since the colonists fought wars with the Native Americans. America’s history has been stained by the heinous practices of slavery, the virtual genocide of Native Americans, and Japanese internment camps. One practice, though, that people may be surprised to learn still exists in today’s world is segregation. Segregation, as defined by Dalton Conley, refers to the “legal or social practice of separating people on the basis of their race or ethnicity” (p. 520). Though the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as discussed by the U.S. government’s archives website, outlawed segregation in schools, public places, and occupations, it still exists in our society. Conley sites Massey & Denton when he writes of the “culture of segregation” that exists, especially in America’s ghettos.

What is Race?

What is race? In today’s society many individuals have set definitions of race that limit the differences between two races to specific traits, which can include skin color and religion, among others. However, the boundaries which we draw between the groups of people we separate into race have not always been so clear. Race has been as changing and dynamic as other established social institutions. Yet, as modern definition may change, race still displays an important role in the way that individuals categorize themselves and others. Race, when focused exclusively upon, can become a boundary used to justify inequality and discrimination, as most people are familiar with today.