What was the author's purpose in writing this book, how can you tell? How well was this purpose achieved?
The purpose of this book was to describe what different topics that may have seemed irrelevant to each other yet they were somehow tied to one another. Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner wrote this book and still now continue the book on a blog. The book explored topics such as the similarities between school teachers and sumo wrestlers, how the Ku klux klan and real estate agents are alike, common names for poor and rich areas, and many other interesting topics. Those topics were some of my favorite but there were many more to choose from in the book.
The book started out with Sumo wrestlers Vs. school teachers. This i found interesting because they talked a lot about cheating. The book explained how teachers would do almost anything for his/her class to look really good because if a class does well then the teacher in turn gets better pay or treated better. It also explained how school teachers will cheat for their class in a numerous amount of ways to make themselves look good as teachers (without caring about the students). When teachers do this it affects the students next year which in turn makes next years teacher look worse because of the insufficient teachings of the teacher who cheated. This also helps people figure out who the cheaters are. Cheaters are more easily found when there are patterns in the cheating.
With sumo wrestlers the cheating was kind of the same. The book explained how Sumo Wrestlers have fifteen matches and if they win at least eight out of the fifteen matches then they are considered upper-class wrestlers. The cheating part of Sumo Wrestling is in such occasions as when a 7-7 Sumo wrestler faces a 8-6 wrestler. The 8-6 wrestler will usually throw the match so the 7-7 can become an upper class wrestler.
The purpose of this book was really just a book for leisure i think. Because there is really no point in discussing random topics and how they relate to each other, but it is also very interesting to read and you never really want to put the book down.
For what audience(s) is this book intended, and how can you tell? (In other words, for whom would you recommend this book?)
I think this book is for an older to teenage audience. I mean i would recommend it to anyone who just wants to hear interesting facts about stuff but i mean i would really recommend it to teens and adults. I find this book more for an older crowd one because of peoples reading levels and also just the topics they talk about seem to be for older people. For instance last part of the book Freakonomics was pretty good. Some new topics came up that were very interesting and some that were not as interesting. Parenting came up as one that stood out to me that young kids or a younger crowd really would not care about.I mean i really thought about english when i read this section because it was all about selecting schools and what not. I think that a younger crowd would not get where the authors are coming from at all when they are reading this book so that is why i direct it more toward a middle to older aged crowd of people.
Another part of this book that just supports my idea of directing this book at an older crowd is the topic "Why do drug dealers still live with their mothers." Like really, what is that? I think that is one of the topics that is really irrelevant but i mean it was somewhat interesting just it seemed like the authors did not have a lot to write about it. I mean do not get me wrong i loved the whole book in its entirety but topics like this and some others are just not meant for younger kids and older adults that do not like things like this.
What are the weaknesses of this book, in your opinion?
I think this book covers topics that are kind of boring. The authors may not think so but i found parts of the book really slow. For example, during the beginning of Freakonomics they talked about the Klu Klux Klan and Real Estate agents and how each of them are alike. This section of the book started with the Klu Klux Klan. It explained how they started off as a group of people that went around in sheets and pillow cases and would do harmless pranks to people. Then they talked about how the pranks became no longer harmless. Like they took a lot more time just to say that. So i thought that some of the book was really irrelevant.
Also when they talked about the Real Estate agents they talked about how they chose to sell a house and who too. Depending on age, race, etc. the Real Estate agents would act differently and would offer different areas according to the way the person presented themselves. I found that disturbing because just if a person presents their self in one way does not mean they are that way. If you get what i am saying.
In the book Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner pick the most bizarre topics to debate about but in the end the way they use evidence to prove their comparisons is very good. Some parts were way better than others but I really liked the book. I think if we get another chance to do a lit circle again we should read Superfreakonomics it seems just as interesting. Like i also said before in almost all of my posts about this book i would still love to hear what my group mates think about the book as well besides what is on their blogs. (Also on my last blog post i put the link to the freakonomics blog)
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Freakonomics LC Letter (part 3)
France (FDC), Ming (MSG), and Brandon (B. FOK),
The last part of the book Freakonomics was pretty good. Some new topics came up that were very interesting and some that were not as interesting. As france pointed out the parenting thing came up. Race came into play and also parents selecting which schools appealed to their children's learning styles. When i read about the selection of schools by parents i thought of a discussion we all had in english. Sutherland was talking about how if you live in an area with good school's the property tax goes up. In the book this brings up the point that if you live in a nicer area the schools are probably better and the same for the poorer areas.
I think that Freakonomics was overall excellent. I would love to read the second book which i believe is called SuperFreakonomics. I looked it up and i read some reviews about is such as this one:
“This book is a lot like Freakonomics, but better… Levitt and Dubner have a gift for explaining precisely how a researcher discovers something. Their epilogue, on Keith Chen’s attempts to introduce currency to a monkey society, is a model of how to tell a gripping story of scientific research without compromising on accuracy.”
—FINANCIAL TIMES
I also saw online that there was a Freakonomics blog up. I was very interested in this book so i started to read and it is really just like the book. It just extends topics to an extent no one would think about. I will post the link to the blog as one of the comments but i really would recommend the book to anyone. If we do another lit circle i suggest SuperFreakonomics because i thought Freakonomics was good so why not read the sequel. There is not much to say about the book here but i would love to discuss about the book with you guys during class if we get time to do so.
The last part of the book Freakonomics was pretty good. Some new topics came up that were very interesting and some that were not as interesting. As france pointed out the parenting thing came up. Race came into play and also parents selecting which schools appealed to their children's learning styles. When i read about the selection of schools by parents i thought of a discussion we all had in english. Sutherland was talking about how if you live in an area with good school's the property tax goes up. In the book this brings up the point that if you live in a nicer area the schools are probably better and the same for the poorer areas.
I think that Freakonomics was overall excellent. I would love to read the second book which i believe is called SuperFreakonomics. I looked it up and i read some reviews about is such as this one:
“This book is a lot like Freakonomics, but better… Levitt and Dubner have a gift for explaining precisely how a researcher discovers something. Their epilogue, on Keith Chen’s attempts to introduce currency to a monkey society, is a model of how to tell a gripping story of scientific research without compromising on accuracy.”
—FINANCIAL TIMES
I also saw online that there was a Freakonomics blog up. I was very interested in this book so i started to read and it is really just like the book. It just extends topics to an extent no one would think about. I will post the link to the blog as one of the comments but i really would recommend the book to anyone. If we do another lit circle i suggest SuperFreakonomics because i thought Freakonomics was good so why not read the sequel. There is not much to say about the book here but i would love to discuss about the book with you guys during class if we get time to do so.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Spring Break.
So my spring break for 2010 was pretty good. I went to Lake Tahoe, saw Wicked, hung out with my friends, went to Great America, and made $90 umpiring some baseball games. Overall my spring break was really good. Overall my break was really good because i had a lot of fun with my friends and family.
I went to lake tahoe from Saturday to Tuesday. Started out pretty boring we spent Saturday and Sunday just hanging out at the cabin because my parents were being lazy for some reason. On Monday my mom took me snowboarding which was awesome. I went on the intermediate slopes with her and she kept falling. She actually slowed me down a lot. I had a lot of fun though. I was going really fast but it was also really cold. I fell a couple times and it really hurt but i am all good now. After snowboarding we went back to the cabin and started packing for the next days road trip back home.
The day we got back home which was Tuesday was really boring because we spent the whole day driving. The next day though we went to see Wicked with my Grandmother. I have seen and heard all the commercials for it and it looked a little weird to me but i actually really liked it. It was really funny and entertaining. It was pretty much a, i don't know the word for it, but a "knock off" (more or less) of the Wizard Of Oz. It had a lot of the same characters and the same themes and it was just like a part one of the Wizard Of Oz (Wizard Of Oz being the part two).
Thursday was more of a day for friends. We all met up at my house to go play basketball and bike. Made a couple of new friends that day too. I also saw France Darwin biking down Island Drive like a maniac trying to get to Andrew's house. It was a pretty chill yet really fun day. We should all do that more often except this time have our whole group there. After an exhausting game of basketball we all went home. We all had to end early because I had to go to Great America the next day.
Great America was fun. I went with Jared and ended up hanging with him and a bunch of other people we happened to know (Katrina, Helene, Kathryn, and Christy). We all just walked around the park, played games, and rode on the roller coasters. I figured out that day that i am terrified of roller coasters. I can not stand them. When they go down i have this fear of it not stopping and hitting the ground and it freaks me out.
Those were pretty much the highlights of my break. I had so much fun. I can not wait until summer, thats when the really good stuff is going to happen (Baseball Season!). The 2010 Spring Break was excellent!
I went to lake tahoe from Saturday to Tuesday. Started out pretty boring we spent Saturday and Sunday just hanging out at the cabin because my parents were being lazy for some reason. On Monday my mom took me snowboarding which was awesome. I went on the intermediate slopes with her and she kept falling. She actually slowed me down a lot. I had a lot of fun though. I was going really fast but it was also really cold. I fell a couple times and it really hurt but i am all good now. After snowboarding we went back to the cabin and started packing for the next days road trip back home.
The day we got back home which was Tuesday was really boring because we spent the whole day driving. The next day though we went to see Wicked with my Grandmother. I have seen and heard all the commercials for it and it looked a little weird to me but i actually really liked it. It was really funny and entertaining. It was pretty much a, i don't know the word for it, but a "knock off" (more or less) of the Wizard Of Oz. It had a lot of the same characters and the same themes and it was just like a part one of the Wizard Of Oz (Wizard Of Oz being the part two).
Thursday was more of a day for friends. We all met up at my house to go play basketball and bike. Made a couple of new friends that day too. I also saw France Darwin biking down Island Drive like a maniac trying to get to Andrew's house. It was a pretty chill yet really fun day. We should all do that more often except this time have our whole group there. After an exhausting game of basketball we all went home. We all had to end early because I had to go to Great America the next day.
Great America was fun. I went with Jared and ended up hanging with him and a bunch of other people we happened to know (Katrina, Helene, Kathryn, and Christy). We all just walked around the park, played games, and rode on the roller coasters. I figured out that day that i am terrified of roller coasters. I can not stand them. When they go down i have this fear of it not stopping and hitting the ground and it freaks me out.
Those were pretty much the highlights of my break. I had so much fun. I can not wait until summer, thats when the really good stuff is going to happen (Baseball Season!). The 2010 Spring Break was excellent!
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Freakonomics LC Letter (parts 1 & 2)
PART 1
For the first part of Freakonomics they talked about Sumo Wrestlers and Teachers and how each of them are alike. Although they both seem like completely different topics both of the strategies they use are very similar. In the book they use cheating as similarities between the two. They say that teachers may cheat to help their students on exams or SAT's while Sumo Wrestlers cheat to help others in the ranking.
It starts with an Israeli day care center where they do a test on the parents about late pick-ups of children. What i did not understand is in the book they only chose one day care center and so the data did not really prove anything because it had no other evidence besides that one day care center. The data from the one day care center showed that parents would pay a small fee to pick their kids up late rather than picking them up on time.
The next part of the book was about the school teachers. It said how school teachers will cheat for their class in a numerous amount of ways to make themselves look good as teachers. When teachers do this it affects the students next year which in turn makes next years teacher look worse because of the insufficient teachings of the teacher who cheated. This also helps people figure out who the cheaters are. Cheaters are more easily found when there are patterns in the cheating.
After they explained the cheating with payments of Israeli parents and the cheating of school teachers they went to the Sumo Wrestlers. The book explained how Sumo Wrestlers have fifteen matches and if they win at least eight out of the fifteen matches then they are considered upper-class wrestlers. The cheating part of Sumo Wrestling is in such occasions as when a 7-7 Sumo wrestler faces a 8-6 wrestler. The 8-6 wrestler will usually throw the match so the 7-7 can become an upper class wrestler.
In the first part of Freakonomics it mainly talked about cheating and ways to cheat. Sumo Wrestlers do an honor system, teachers do it for themselves, and the Israeli parents that were tested did it for the money. There were also a couple of other examples that were not as big.
PART 2
For the first part of Freakonomics they talked about the Klu Klux Klan and Real Estate agents and how each of them are alike. This section of the book started with the Klu Klux Klan. It explained how they started off as a group of people that went around in sheets and pillow cases and would do harmless pranks to people. Soon after the Klan started it turned into pranks that were more dangerous. Then after the more dangerous pranks came around they were then directed at certain groups of people.
When they talked about the Real Estate agents they talked about how they chose to sell a house and who too. Depending on age, race, etc. the Real Estate agents would act differently and would offer different areas according to the way the person presented themselves. I found that disturbing because just if a person presents their self in one way does not mean they are that way. If you get what i am saying.
In the book Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner (i love how they have the same first name) pick the most bizarre topics to debate about but in the end the way they use evidence to prove their comparisons is very good. So far the book has been a pleasure to read and i have some things i would like to discuss with my group because i would like to hear their opinion on these topics.
For the first part of Freakonomics they talked about Sumo Wrestlers and Teachers and how each of them are alike. Although they both seem like completely different topics both of the strategies they use are very similar. In the book they use cheating as similarities between the two. They say that teachers may cheat to help their students on exams or SAT's while Sumo Wrestlers cheat to help others in the ranking.
It starts with an Israeli day care center where they do a test on the parents about late pick-ups of children. What i did not understand is in the book they only chose one day care center and so the data did not really prove anything because it had no other evidence besides that one day care center. The data from the one day care center showed that parents would pay a small fee to pick their kids up late rather than picking them up on time.
The next part of the book was about the school teachers. It said how school teachers will cheat for their class in a numerous amount of ways to make themselves look good as teachers. When teachers do this it affects the students next year which in turn makes next years teacher look worse because of the insufficient teachings of the teacher who cheated. This also helps people figure out who the cheaters are. Cheaters are more easily found when there are patterns in the cheating.
After they explained the cheating with payments of Israeli parents and the cheating of school teachers they went to the Sumo Wrestlers. The book explained how Sumo Wrestlers have fifteen matches and if they win at least eight out of the fifteen matches then they are considered upper-class wrestlers. The cheating part of Sumo Wrestling is in such occasions as when a 7-7 Sumo wrestler faces a 8-6 wrestler. The 8-6 wrestler will usually throw the match so the 7-7 can become an upper class wrestler.
In the first part of Freakonomics it mainly talked about cheating and ways to cheat. Sumo Wrestlers do an honor system, teachers do it for themselves, and the Israeli parents that were tested did it for the money. There were also a couple of other examples that were not as big.
PART 2
For the first part of Freakonomics they talked about the Klu Klux Klan and Real Estate agents and how each of them are alike. This section of the book started with the Klu Klux Klan. It explained how they started off as a group of people that went around in sheets and pillow cases and would do harmless pranks to people. Soon after the Klan started it turned into pranks that were more dangerous. Then after the more dangerous pranks came around they were then directed at certain groups of people.
When they talked about the Real Estate agents they talked about how they chose to sell a house and who too. Depending on age, race, etc. the Real Estate agents would act differently and would offer different areas according to the way the person presented themselves. I found that disturbing because just if a person presents their self in one way does not mean they are that way. If you get what i am saying.
In the book Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner (i love how they have the same first name) pick the most bizarre topics to debate about but in the end the way they use evidence to prove their comparisons is very good. So far the book has been a pleasure to read and i have some things i would like to discuss with my group because i would like to hear their opinion on these topics.
Friday, April 2, 2010
4th Quarter writing goals.
What are my current goals as a writer?
For this quarter my writing goals are to keep my writing fluent, cut out redundancy, and learn to not get stuck while i am writing. My plan for this quarter is to just plan before each post instead of waiting until the last minute to do it. If i plan ahead of time all three of these goals should be much easier to achieve. One more goal i have for this final quarter of the school year is to brainstorm and write out what i want to write about before actually writing about it. This way i can know what i am going to write about so it will help me with these other few goals as well.
By keeping my writing fluent i will be able to finish my blog post faster and also be more efficient when taking the time to write it. If i already know what i want to write about before hand, i can just keep writing without stopping whereas i usually stop during the midst of it because i get stuck. This method has seemed to work in the past but it has seemed to be more time consuming in the end. I have planned out what i wanted to write on a separate piece of paper but it always ends up taking a while for me to choose what i actually want to write about. Though brainstorming before takes time, in the long run it is a lot more useful. By planning things out before i write i will for sure be able to cut down on time and also get my writing done completely without having to think about what to write.
Another goal which has always been a goal for me is cutting out redundancy. I tend to write things over and over again except in different formats. This is a bad habit which also is not a very good method of writing. I need to work on this by rereading my work before posting it or by even asking someone else to critic my writing. I could also plan as well for cutting out redundancy. By planning it will just make my writing smoother which will therefore not make me have to stop and think about what to write. If i have to stop and think about what i write then i might go back to the same sort of topic i was on before.
The last thing i want to work on is not getting stuck when i write. It is different from keeping my writing fluent because for that i want to just not get stuck. For this i want to become more fluent in my writing as in writing my posts like writing fluency when i write. Which also leads back to planning. If i plan then i can get everything done. Planning seems to be the main goal for me, so as of now my main goal is to plan ahead before writing my blog posts.
For this quarter my writing goals are to keep my writing fluent, cut out redundancy, and learn to not get stuck while i am writing. My plan for this quarter is to just plan before each post instead of waiting until the last minute to do it. If i plan ahead of time all three of these goals should be much easier to achieve. One more goal i have for this final quarter of the school year is to brainstorm and write out what i want to write about before actually writing about it. This way i can know what i am going to write about so it will help me with these other few goals as well.
By keeping my writing fluent i will be able to finish my blog post faster and also be more efficient when taking the time to write it. If i already know what i want to write about before hand, i can just keep writing without stopping whereas i usually stop during the midst of it because i get stuck. This method has seemed to work in the past but it has seemed to be more time consuming in the end. I have planned out what i wanted to write on a separate piece of paper but it always ends up taking a while for me to choose what i actually want to write about. Though brainstorming before takes time, in the long run it is a lot more useful. By planning things out before i write i will for sure be able to cut down on time and also get my writing done completely without having to think about what to write.
Another goal which has always been a goal for me is cutting out redundancy. I tend to write things over and over again except in different formats. This is a bad habit which also is not a very good method of writing. I need to work on this by rereading my work before posting it or by even asking someone else to critic my writing. I could also plan as well for cutting out redundancy. By planning it will just make my writing smoother which will therefore not make me have to stop and think about what to write. If i have to stop and think about what i write then i might go back to the same sort of topic i was on before.
The last thing i want to work on is not getting stuck when i write. It is different from keeping my writing fluent because for that i want to just not get stuck. For this i want to become more fluent in my writing as in writing my posts like writing fluency when i write. Which also leads back to planning. If i plan then i can get everything done. Planning seems to be the main goal for me, so as of now my main goal is to plan ahead before writing my blog posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
